Sinful Morality

[megamattman1]

This is a tangent to the America might be evil thread. We as Catholics should not allow for polygamy, same sex marriage, euthanasia etc. (I might say abortion to, but I think that should have its own class) But a lot of time I hear people, maybe not Catholics, but often times them too, that say that those people can do what they want on their own time, but we're not going to recognize it.

Of course we can't stop people from doing what they are going to do, and if this is what is meant most of the time by that quote, then that's that.

But shouldn't they be saying that nothing is permissable in those regards. Any homosexual/polygamous etc activity should be punished. Not only not permissable by law, but also proactively and explicitly punishable for doing on your own time. Sort of like those anti-sodomy laws (that didn't have anything to do with same sex marriage)

So I'm just looking at what you all have to say bout that.

Edited August 24, 2004 by megamattman1

[Crusader_4]

I think once you open the door peoples ideas and hearts become corrupted and over a period of time the slope gets slippier and steeper to hell. Thats just me though. You have to draw a line somewhere based upon logic and reason and divine law or you will surely fall...because it is then based on emotions and feelings and desires and we have abolished man by making him only an animal.

[megamattman1]

So do you think we should enact those typesa laws then?

[Crusader_4]

I think that we should not enact any law that is not based upon natural law.

[megamattman1]

I don't see how freedom of religion even as VII explained it defends allowing for immoral private practices. It seems to me as I see it so far that VII says freedom of religion is basically freedom to think what you're going to think, and we shouldn't try to coerce people into our thinking; they should convert willingly.

That prior council that Al showed in another thread said people do not have the moral grounding to practice immoral acts, privately I believe. I wonder if that council said anything on this matter. This matter again being regulating other's moral acts. Or if VII has more to say that I am unaware of.


So anyway, are, for (a crude) example, anti sodomy laws the right thing to do? Or for cleaner examples, anti people engaging in polygamy etc? Or even anti fornication, that is so rampant today?

Edited August 25, 2004 by megamattman1

[Crusader_4]

I would say that the government cannot support sodomy. I.E. recognizing homosexual unions. also it depends on what you mean by anti-sodomy remembering charity is the greatest virtue.

[megamattman1]

Sorry, make sure to read my edits in my last thread.

[quote]I would say that the government cannot support sodomy. I.E. recognizing homosexual unions.[/quote]


Do you mean by homosexual unions, civil unions? Or do you mean acting in homosexual ways?

I meant this in both instances.
[quote]Sort of like those anti-sodomy laws (that didn't have anything to do with same sex marriage)[/quote]

What I mean is that people who engage in sodomy or other immoral acts should be restricted somehow. Perhaps with sodomy the privacy moral is a factor. I don't know much about weighting moral factors. But with other blantant immoral acts at least, shouldn't we engage in laws that punish the acts?

Maybe we'll decide privacy covers all these acts, but shouldn't way at least in theory that if it weren't for privacy, we should punish the acts? So perhaps to push the envelope of hypothetical, at least for those who are rebels who openly admit to their actions, punish them?

Edited August 25, 2004 by megamattman1