The Pope on Politics

[dairygirl4u2c]

Allowing gay marriage by writing a law for it is completely different in my mind to banning sodomy. Proactively doing something v. banning something. Notice the Pope doesn't talk about how we need to ban sodomy, fornication, condoms etc. One might even argue the effect of condoms is worse than gay marriage, but he doesn't talk about it.
Banning murder is where something hurts others. banning hurting others v. banning hurting yourself

I think the discussion would be interesting to move into comparing cutting yourself and sex sins. That's stuff that I admit I'm not sure how to address, exactly. I think I'm for allowing people to cut and maybe kill tehmself, but for Catholics, I mean, I'm not sure how to respond.
I think most of you hard core conservatives though can't really say why you don't ban all sins, and choose whichever seems to be hotly debated, thus conforming to what you're suppose to beleive.

Edited March 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Budge]

The Vatican itself is a political organization.

of COURSE they will promote politics with their "nation" status and army of diplomats and body guards.

The church, and I point to evangelical and other churches, not just Rome has been compromised by politics especially in America.

Where platitutdes, and smokescreens are used by corrupt politicians to get votes and the same dastardly plans pursued behind the scenes,.

Christians need to speak up for what is right, but one thing your church does is use abortion and gay marriage as smokescreens. Nothing is ever really done like the Republicans who used abortion to get evangelical votes but will never change things. This is why Rome has no problem supporting and promotnig the biggest death culture organization in the world, the UN. Sure theyll protest some of their rulings, but they support them as an organization and that is what counts.

"Fight the culture" "Christians" have lost the plot, they do not understand that people and cultures change when they are converted to Jesus Christ. They somehow think using the rule of law on unbeleivers and the unregenerate is going to change things, when really all it has done throughtout human history is impose fascism and totalitarianism.

[Anomaly]

dairy,
I'm not sure what you mean in your most recent post.

Are you saying we shouldn't write new laws to allow gay marriage, but that is different from writing laws that ban sodomy?
I think in practical terms, we have to write laws that narrowly define marriage in order to ban gay marriage.

What people fail to realize, there are hundreds of laws prohibiting so called 'victimless' behavior. There are laws against prostitution, incest, polygamy, and other things that could be said it's between consenting adults.

When you stop to think about it, most laws are restrictive of choice and not always based on 'being harmful to others'. If I want to smoke dope, what's the big deal as long as I don't do any harm to others when I'm stoned. If I want to speed while driving, what's the big deal if the road is open and clear of others. If I want to hire a willing prostitute, what's the big deal if we arrange a business agreement. If I want to sell pornography, what's the big deal if I sell it to willing adults. If I want to drive a car without insurance, what's the big deal if I'm willing to pay for damage I cause IF I get in an accident?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree in practical terms you're essentially banning it. But you're not neceesarily proactively seeking to ban it. if you're changing what the constituion says in order to ban it by limiting it, i think that's essentially banning it which I dont' see why it's done. it depends on why you wrote what you did.


prostituion i'm not sure about because women are often victimized.
drunk driving isn't allowed because someone could be on the road.
drugs should be legal, at least in moderation. though i'm not sure about hurting yourself and cutting yoruself and this could be considered similar.

you don't explain why you odn't ban all sins, as they hurt themselves and indirectly others. is it based on the severity of the sin hat you choose to ban or not? does that mean you don't ban the lesser because you think people should be free to engage in those small sins?

Edited March 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221149' date='Mar 28 2007, 01:41 PM']i agree in practical terms you're essentially banning it. But you're not neceesarily proactively seeking to ban it. if you're changing what the constituion says in order to ban it by limiting it, i think that's essentially banning it which I dont' see why it's done.

prostituion i'm not sure about because women are often victimized.
drunk driving isn't allowed because someone could be on the road.
drugs should be legal, at least in moderation. though i'm not sure about hurting yourself and cutting yoruself and this could be it too.

you don't explain why you odn't ban all sins, as they hurt themselves and indirectly others. is it based on the severity of the sin hat you choose to ban or not? does that mean you don't ban the lesser because you think people should be free to engage in those small sins?[/quote]I purposly didn't say we should ban all sins. Certainly things are based on the severity of the 'sin' or act to choose what to ban. Arguablly, certain things deteriorate the fundamentals of society and are banned for that reason. For example, on prostitution, it could be said that laws be generated that protect women who choose to be prostitutes from victimization. OR, a real hurt from legal prostitution is that it weakens the bond of fidelity in marriage and promotes sexual promiscuity. Those effects have long term consequences on the make-up of society. But you and I are discussing it from philosophical principles. For Catholics, what's serious has already been decided and pointed out to them.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

Maybe we shouldn't have laws addressing any of these items. If we aren't going to have laws against masturbation, why have laws restricting pornography. Why can't 13 year olds buy pornography because they're going to masturbate anyway?

Edited March 28, 2007 by Anomaly

[jesussaves]

sins are crimes against God, and should not be allowed

Edited March 28, 2007 by jesussaves

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems reasonable that if you think sodomy etc cause social ills to a great degree to be for banning it. though i personally don't think the social ills are there, even from a catholic perspective, enough to justify people's God given right to sin. and it's also reasonable that you don't want to ban sloth etc if you perceive them to be smaller social ills not enough to ban. i'd assume you agree with the god given right for those things, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. so essentially, you agree with the not hurting anyone else theory is what should base things to ban. you think sodomy hurts others.
if these are your reasons, i think you should be more express about them so as to not talk past people like me.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221310' date='Mar 28 2007, 05:51 PM']it seems reasonable that if you think sodomy etc cause social ills to a great degree to be for banning it. though i personally don't think the social ills are there, even from a catholic perspective, enough to justify people's God given right to sin. and it's also reasonable that you don't want to ban sloth etc if you perceive them to be smaller social ills not enough to ban. i'd assume you agree with the god given right for those things, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. so essentially, you agree with the not hurting anyone else theory is what should base things to ban. you think sodomy hurts others.
if these are your reasons, i think you should be more express about them so as to not talk past people like me.[/quote]If you have the impression I am talking past you, I apologize. I certainly don't mean to.
What I'm trying to point out is there are greater consequences for actions than are generally acknowledged. I agree with you that we have the God given gift of free-will, but along with that comes the responsibility of paying the consequences. Government that provides order via laws, not only protects the weak, but gives order and structure to society by helping to establish and legitamize values held by society. Humans are social creatures and interact in a larger society. We need help in balancing individual rights and the rights of greater society.

[Budge]

[quote]sins are crimes against God, and should not be allowed[/quote]

Lets lock up everyone then...

Get in argument, youre going to jail....

etc...

Some on here seem to desire the state to become even more totalitarian.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221349' date='Mar 28 2007, 05:52 PM']Lets lock up everyone then...

Get in argument, youre going to jail....

etc...

Some on here seem to desire the state to become even more totalitarian.[/quote]


That happens now. It's called disturbing the peace or spousal abuse. So are you suggesting it be stricken from the books.

[Budge]

No those are crimes.

Someone here wrote that every sin should have a criminal charge, I was talking about an argument where no physical altercation is involved and where you are not in a public place.

I guess the prisons would be even fuller...