An implication of not prosecuting sodomy...

[RamistThomist]

If we are not supposed to prosecute sodomites in the New Covenant age--the acting subject here is the secular civil magistrate--then does the following logical argument work:

Premise 1: The civil magistrate is not to prosecute sodomites.
Premise 2: The denying of sodomites the right to marry is a form of prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: The civil magistrate (in the age of common grace) is to allow for sodomite unions in the commonwealth.

 

[Peairtach]

Premise 2: The denying of sodomites the right to marry is a form of prosecution.

They've always had the right to marry i.e. be united in marriage to someone of the opposite sex.

The words "marry", "marriage", etc, are now being redifined contrary to Scripture, and how they've always been understood, in an Orwellian fashion.

"Homosexual marriage" is not marriage, but a form of parody- or pseudo-marriage, just as getting "married" to your dog is not marriage.

I believe if there was an ascendency of Christianity, homosexual behaviour and promotion would be outlawed, as it once was. But we don't live in those days, currently, and maybe not in our lifetimes.

 

[Edward]

Here's where the error is:

If we are not supposed to prosecute sodomites in the New Covenant age

 

[RamistThomist]

My original post was a reductio. I am a proponent of Gillespie and Rutherford.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Since when does "Common Grace" allow sinful behavior? Is it just me or does this syllogism have some definitional problems?

 

[RamistThomist]

A question I always asked. The problem with saying "common grace" or "natural law" is that defining the content of each is usually left up to each person.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The problem with saying "common grace" or "natural law" is that defining the content of each is usually left up to each person.

If true then both premises are false.

 

[Mushroom]

I once read a parody of a guy who married himself and took to the road as a one-man truck-driving team. He couldn't get along with himself and ended up divorced. Alimony was a confusing question...

May not be far from reality in this country. But the syllogism stands. If the first premise is true then the second is necessarily true due to the fact that sodomy is a perversion of the natural relations between a man and a woman. If the first perversion is to be allowed the second, the perversion of marriage, is a necessary consequence. To argue that it is not marriage because it is a perversion is moot in light of the acceptance of the first perversion.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A question I always asked. The problem with saying "common grace" or "natural law" is that defining the content of each is usually left up to each person.

It would seem there is no basis for conclusion because the premises can't be defined or understood.

Maybe you need to start over.

Maybe remove the terminology of "marry" and use the word "union" and completely remove the terminology of common grace and it would work better. What thinkest thou?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Your first premise is flawed because there is no good reason that the civil magistrate should not prosecute sodomites. Obviously this change came about for cultural reasons, but it has nothing to do with the law of God. The laws against sodomy are part of the moral law and thus they still apply. The fact that the civil magistrate is drifting further and further from upholding God's law is reflective of the overall spiritual condition of our fallen world.

 

[RamistThomist]

Your first premise is flawed because there is no good reason that the civil magistrate should not prosecute sodomites. Obviously this change came about for cultural reasons, but it has nothing to do with the law of God. The laws against sodomy are part of the moral law and thus they still apply. The fact that the civil magistrate is drifting further and further from upholding God's law is reflective of the overall spiritual condition of our fallen world.

Right. To be clear, this is not my premise. I am simply offering a reductio ad absurdum on the position that the magistrate shouldn't seek to bring Christian laws and punish sexual deviants because we live in the age of grace. I am reducing that view, known as neutrality or principled pluralism, to absurdity.

 

[Philip]

Here's my critique:

The civil magistrate is not to prosecute sodomites.

This is not a moral imperative, but a practical necessity. If we could have a covenanted nation, then the legislative arm of the civil magistracy might be warranted in putting such laws into force in a new covenant manner apart from types and shadows. However, such a state is neither possible nor desirable, therefore as a practical matter, such laws are an exercise in futility and effect no just purpose.

The denying of sodomites the right to marry is a form of prosecution.

Not at all. If I have someone arrested for a crime, then I have prosecuted them. If I deny that they have a right, I have not.

Consider the following scenario: a man brings to the courthouse papers to the effect that he is selling himself into slavery. As a matter of law he cannot do so, the law will not recognize such documents, and will continue to treat him as a free man. But is he being prosecuted? No. Such a contract is not criminal on his part (I don't think) but it is automatically null and void. Such a document has no legal force.

Similarly, if the magistrate denies the right of homosexual couples to marry, it is merely saying that such a contract has no force of law and is simply not recognized.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here's my critique:

The civil magistrate is not to prosecute sodomites.

This is not a moral imperative, but a practical necessity. If we could have a covenanted nation, then the legislative arm of the civil magistracy might be warranted in putting such laws into force in a new covenant manner apart from types and shadows. However, such a state is neither possible nor desirable, therefore as a practical matter, such laws are an exercise in futility and effect no just purpose.

The denying of sodomites the right to marry is a form of prosecution.

Not at all. If I have someone arrested for a crime, then I have prosecuted them. If I deny that they have a right, I have not.

Consider the following scenario: a man brings to the courthouse papers to the effect that he is selling himself into slavery. As a matter of law he cannot do so, the law will not recognize such documents, and will continue to treat him as a free man. But is he being prosecuted? No. Such a contract is not criminal on his part (I don't think) but it is automatically null and void. Such a document has no legal force.

Similarly, if the magistrate denies the right of homosexual couples to marry, it is merely saying that such a contract has no force of law and is simply not recognized.

Ambiguity on my part. Change the term "prosecuted" to "persecuted." And given the modern nonsense and ubiquity of rights-language, then it becomes plausible

 

[Philip]

Ambiguity on my part. Change the term "prosecuted" to "persecuted." And given the modern nonsense and ubiquity of rights-language, then it becomes plausible

Indeed it does. So let's dispense with such things. Denying you an impossible legal status is not denying you a right, nor is it persecution.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ambiguity on my part. Change the term "prosecuted" to "persecuted." And given the modern nonsense and ubiquity of rights-language, then it becomes plausible

Indeed it does. So let's dispense with such things. Denying you an impossible legal status is not denying you a right, nor is it persecution.

Except the rhetoric used by the sodomite agenda, along with the usual anti-Christian legislation, does view the denying of a "right" as a mild form of persecution.

 

[Philip]

Except the rhetoric used by the sodomite agenda, along with the usual anti-Christian legislation, does view the denying of a "right" as a mild form of persecution.

So? I'm not sure what you're point here is, exactly. If your argument is intended as a reductio toward a position, such as my own, then why should I care how the world defines persecution?

 

[ChristianTrader]

A question I always asked. The problem with saying "common grace" or "natural law" is that defining the content of each is usually left up to each person.

So if it is not left up to each person you would have no problem with common grace or natural law?

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jacob,

Here's the problem with the syllogism.

You've defined natural law as "whatever anyone wants it to be". It has no objective meaning in your way of thinking. We'll leave aside, for the moment, whether that's true or not.

You then hone in on one, apparently arbitrary, definition of natural law. In this "mystery man's" view of natural law, the magistrate is not to prosecute (or is it persecute) sodomy in the major premise.

Who's view are you reducing here? It certainly can't be a reduction of natural law in general because you stated that the content of what natural law entails varies for every individual.

In other words, for a reductio to work you need to have stable premises. The major and minor premises have to be true in order to yield a true conclusion but you've stated a major premise that you already admit will be false for many people.

 

[Covenant Joel]

If we are not supposed to prosecute sodomites in the New Covenant age--the acting subject here is the secular civil magistrate--then does the following logical argument work:

Premise 1: The civil magistrate is not to prosecute sodomites.
Premise 2: The denying of sodomites the right to marry is a form of prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: The civil magistrate (in the age of common grace) is to allow for sodomite unions in the commonwealth.

I agree that your premise 2 is questionable.