The Christian Response to Homosexuality II: Legal Issues

[micatala]

As noted in the other thread, I am creating this parallel thread to specifically address the following questions.

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?

Again, we can assume for the purposes of this thread that homosexuality is immoral according to standard Christian teaching. There is no need to cite scripture here to support this contention.

However, it definitely is appropriate to cite scripture to support political positions. If one is to take the position that homosexual acts should be prohibited by civil law (not just church law), that applies to both CHristians and non-CHristians, then it is incumbent upon the person taking this position to provide Biblical support for said position.

[melikio]

ALso, keep in mind that the laws are not 'theocratic' laws that apply only to believers or the identified 'chosen people.'

Still, one has to wonder a little about the title of the topic, as it relates to what you point out. That is, we could be talking about the "Christian" response, the "legal" response or both.

Did you intend that we analyze/discuss the existing laws, or those which Christians think/believe should be in place?

One must make a case that such laws, even if they are motivated by Christian belief and morality, should apply to both believers and un-believers.

Specifically, unless we have a massive cultural and/or Constitutional change in this society, that laws "motivated" by religion, will not be accepted and abided by "all" (at least not without such laws being seriously challenged, in a most direct fashion). I mean, Christians and others could go as far as implementing 10 Commandments types of laws, but it does have to be considered as to how practical and just such laws would actually be (for "ALL").

And legally, that is a major part of the argument/discussion. How directly should morals or ideas based upon religion, be included in laws which apply to those who aren't of a given doctrine or belief system?

As far as homosexuality (exclusively speaking), I can't think of any logical reasons why any "law" (that all must follow) must discriminate against or support the behavior.

In the broader sense, the U.S. Constitution isn't a condensed version of the Bible (as some like to interpret it as being); so, there comes a point (in reality) where there need to be reasonable "compromises" to accomodate ALL citizens who are living under the law. A law can indeed be "theocratic" (in essence), without adherents being members of the given belief system from which it originates.

While I agree and understand that a nation where the Bible influenced so many (especially) at the beginning, somewhat explains the various interpretations of many laws today, I don't think laws should be created and subsequently enforced solely as a result of some religious viewpoint or worldview.

A law which (for example) bans homosexuality altogether might be desireable to some, but certainly not to others. But there are few or no truly logical reason/s outside of one's religious views to call for such a law (or enforcement thereof). I think what we see today, is a nation deciding limits; not necessarily concerning "homosexual" rights/protections, but exploring the overall influence of the Bible or religion; what role those things must play as we move forward as a society.

It is a fair question to ask: Why would laws discriminating against homosexual people be right or necessary? Certainly various "biblical" and other religious reasons could be generated as answers, but it would remain questionable as to how those laws whould/should apply to those who do not necessarily ascribe to the particular religious worldview from which such laws might originate. I think it would remain debatable period, because "beliefs" do regularly "clash" with myriad aspects of "reality". This explains why science and religion do often go toe-to-toe on many issues.

I'm not sure how "torn" some of our Founding Fathers must have been, to NOT include certain doctrines/dogma in the laws of this nation, but I think it is fairly clear that they did not intend for laws to act as an enforcement of morality. It is clear that they had witnessed or experienced the POWER of religion in "law" over the people, and saw fit to "limit" the influence of organized religion over this nation's endeavors.

I'm not calling for a total disregard of the Bible, but calling direct attention to the undeniable reality that not all people ascribe to the specific (or interpreted) moral instructions taken from the Bible. And that people are encouraged to regard one another in mutually beneficial and peaceful co-existence, is something that I believe the Founding Fathers were after in the overall sense. Christianity (and various forms of it) can certainly be accomodated under the U.S. Constitution, but it would not necessarily be practical (or just) to fold more of what Christianity (or the Bible) is, into the framework of LAWS which ALL must abide.

-Mel-

[micatala]

Still, one has to wonder a little about the title of the topic, as it relates to what you point out. That is, we could be talking about the "Christian" response, the "legal" response or both.

Did you intend that we analyze/discuss the existing laws, or those which Christians think/believe should be in place?

Good question.

My intent was to look at laws that Christians think or believe should be in place. I am not saying that Christians should 'keep their viewpoints to themselves' or that they should 'stay our of politics.'

I am asking for justification for expecting that 'religiously motivated' laws be put into effect as civil law which applies to all.

For example, one might oppose murder on religious grounds, and because of this motivation, seek to have a law prohibiting murder enacted. Why should we enact such a law? Are there other justifications besides the religious one for this law that make its enactment desirable?

If there are other, non-religious justifications, then there is not any reason to make the case that the 'religious law' should be applied to non-believers as well as believers. The justification is already supplied by the non-religiously based arguments.

However, if the only justification for the law is religious, then I am asking that Biblical justification be provided as to why non-believers should be expected to follow a law that is part of a religion they do not accept.

For example, one can make the case that abortion should be banned without specifically citing the Bible as support. (In fact, the Bible does not speak of abortion at all. ) One could argue that most people have a sense of the 'sacredness of life' without it being attached to any particular religious tradition, or any religious tradition at all. One could argue that abortions have deleterious effects on some women (assuming they can produce the data to support this). One could try to argue that the widespread practice of abortion has deleterious effects on society, not unlike murder but to a lesser degree say, and because of this abortion should be banned or at least restricted.

If Christians make such non-religious arguments, even if their motivation is religious, and they are persuasive enough to get the law enacted, then I would say the law is not the 'enacting of a religious law for the sole purpose of furthering the influence of the particular religion.'

It is the enacting of a religious law when their is little or no other justification for doing so that I am asking us to focus on.

As another example, what Biblical justification would there be for enacting a law against practicing a Native American religion? THe justification needs to include an explanation of why non-Christians must follow this law.