Where Is The Line Drawn?

[Groo the Wanderer]

this in a thread that makes no sense?

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1334854614' post='2420649']
These are the two points with which I take issue. First while I do not think there is a large group of people seeking to turn the nation into homosexuals, there is an concerted effort to make homosexual behavior seem as normal behavior, and to criminalize people who disagree. That is an agenda which with Catholics cannot agree.
Secondly, the sin of the Sodomites has never been about people taking shelter, that is a misreading of the test and the teaching of the Church put forth by people wishing to normalize their behavior.
[/quote]

I understand your comments. Let me address each of these points for clarity.

As to the first, people seeking to try to make homosexual behaviour accepted...well, of course they are. No person wishes to be a part of a group or identification that is called abnormal or which is largely denigrated. My perspective is that they are free to argue that point as much and as vociferously as they wish. People are free to further their own interests, it's part and parcel of having freedom of speech. Those listening can either agree, disagree, or choose to ignore, as they please. Just because the topic is discourse on homosexuality doesn't make it any different than any other topic of debate. In terms of trying to criminalize those who dislike or disagree, of course I take issue with that. I don't think that there should be special exceptions for any class of persons, and I disagree fundamentally with the concept of hate crime legislation, which is nothing more than making political capital off of a crime which is ALREADY CRIMINAL under existing law. If you are gay and get beat up? It's called assault. It's not somehow assault-ier because the victim is one person or another. And no one is forced to like or agree with the lifestyle choices of anyone else, ever. That is the beauty of being American. In theory, at least, you can hate everyone and be perfectly within your legal right to do so, so long as your feelings don't infringe on someone else. I understand that the conversation regarding homosexuality is one that has a lot of public traction, but it is because it involves a lot of people, and there are legal issues at hand. But it doesn't become a more important issue by virtue of being a louder one. I'd argue, as well, that moves to criminalize certain sorts of speech in this country have a lot less to do with the furtherance of the objectives of one group (in this case, homosexuals) and a lot more to do with a government hellbent on exerting the maximum control that it can in the maximum number of ways. If the government makes a law about what you can say in regard to homosexuals vis a vis religious speech, it's not because they are making strides for homosexuals. They could care less about homosexuals. That is just a group which becomes a convenient platform to cripple free speech. I suppose I find much less offense at a bunch of people trying to further their own goals than at the government utilizing those people to nefarious ends. Gay people...well, they're just gay. The government is a whole different story.

As to the second, I have no interest in wishing to normalize gay behaviour. My reading of that text is based entirely on context and the fact that all the sins listed there have to do with the overt physical oppression of another human being. Randomly inserting a specific sex act that is consensual seems...out of context. When reading the story of Sodom, I can't say that a specific sin sticks out there. I mean, the story is about a city so ravaged with depravity that they will rape any and everything placed in their path. The physical assault of the helpless, or the misuse of those seeking shelter, seems to me, contextually, to be more logical. As in my example above about an assault on a gay person not being graver due to the orientation of the victim, it seems odd to me that homosexual sex acts would be reclassified in this sense when they are already amply covered in other ways. I mean, there is no person who can rationalize that the bible would not call that sin. First, it is between unmarried persons, hence it is fornication. If one of those persons happens to be in a marriage relationship with a opposite gendered person, as is sometimes the case in homosexual relationships, it is also adultery. It is also considered to be lustful. Not to mention the fact that sexual sins are considered to be grave matter, thus making them mortal, mitigating circumstances notwithstanding. You have, in addition, the biblical admonitions that a man not lie with another man as with a woman. So, you've got Scripture saying it's wrong. Church doctrine says it involves lust, fornication, and possibly adultery, and is a mortal sin. So, why stick it randomly into a list of sins with which it does not contextually belong? My reading here has nothing at all to do with the justification of behaviours, it has to do with the fact that I simply question context. My ultimate point was that in terms of Church teachings, there are more than enough bases covered already in regard to the sinful character of homosexual sex that adding it on to another list to make it super sin-sinnier seemed redundant to me. But like I said, that was my reading, and I don't speak for scholars or the Church. Just my interpretation.

Hope that clarified my points.

[kujo]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1334886237' post='2421058']
I understand your comments. Let me address each of these points for clarity.

As to the first, people seeking to try to make homosexual behaviour accepted...well, of course they are. No person wishes to be a part of a group or identification that is called abnormal or which is largely denigrated. My perspective is that they are free to argue that point as much and as vociferously as they wish. People are free to further their own interests, it's part and parcel of having freedom of speech. Those listening can either agree, disagree, or choose to ignore, as they please. Just because the topic is discourse on homosexuality doesn't make it any different than any other topic of debate. In terms of trying to criminalize those who dislike or disagree, of course I take issue with that. I don't think that there should be special exceptions for any class of persons, and I disagree fundamentally with the concept of hate crime legislation, which is nothing more than making political capital off of a crime which is ALREADY CRIMINAL under existing law. If you are gay and get beat up? It's called assault. It's not somehow assault-ier because the victim is one person or another. And no one is forced to like or agree with the lifestyle choices of anyone else, ever. That is the beauty of being American. In theory, at least, you can hate everyone and be perfectly within your legal right to do so, so long as your feelings don't infringe on someone else. I understand that the conversation regarding homosexuality is one that has a lot of public traction, but it is because it involves a lot of people, and there are legal issues at hand. But it doesn't become a more important issue by virtue of being a louder one. I'd argue, as well, that moves to criminalize certain sorts of speech in this country have a lot less to do with the furtherance of the objectives of one group (in this case, homosexuals) and a lot more to do with a government hellbent on exerting the maximum control that it can in the maximum number of ways. If the government makes a law about what you can say in regard to homosexuals vis a vis religious speech, it's not because they are making strides for homosexuals. They could care less about homosexuals. That is just a group which becomes a convenient platform to cripple free speech. I suppose I find much less offense at a bunch of people trying to further their own goals than at the government utilizing those people to nefarious ends. Gay people...well, they're just gay. The government is a whole different story.

As to the second, I have no interest in wishing to normalize gay behaviour. My reading of that text is based entirely on context and the fact that all the sins listed there have to do with the overt physical oppression of another human being. Randomly inserting a specific sex act that is consensual seems...out of context. When reading the story of Sodom, I can't say that a specific sin sticks out there. I mean, the story is about a city so ravaged with depravity that they will rape any and everything placed in their path. The physical assault of the helpless, or the misuse of those seeking shelter, seems to me, contextually, to be more logical. As in my example above about an assault on a gay person not being graver due to the orientation of the victim, it seems odd to me that homosexual sex acts would be reclassified in this sense when they are already amply covered in other ways. I mean, there is no person who can rationalize that the bible would not call that sin. First, it is between unmarried persons, hence it is fornication. If one of those persons happens to be in a marriage relationship with a opposite gendered person, as is sometimes the case in homosexual relationships, it is also adultery. It is also considered to be lustful. Not to mention the fact that sexual sins are considered to be grave matter, thus making them mortal, mitigating circumstances notwithstanding. You have, in addition, the biblical admonitions that a man not lie with another man as with a woman. So, you've got Scripture saying it's wrong. Church doctrine says it involves lust, fornication, and possibly adultery, and is a mortal sin. So, why stick it randomly into a list of sins with which it does not contextually belong? My reading here has nothing at all to do with the justification of behaviours, it has to do with the fact that I simply question context. My ultimate point was that in terms of Church teachings, there are more than enough bases covered already in regard to the sinful character of homosexual sex that adding it on to another list to make it super sin-sinnier seemed redundant to me. But like I said, that was my reading, and I don't speak for scholars or the Church. Just my interpretation.

Hope that clarified my points.
[/quote]

You rock. Seriously....seriously...