John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks. He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down. He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
