Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[MaryContrary]

Interesting indeed. I find it interesting that Jesus, the FOUNDER of Christianity consorted with all strata of society from the street-level whores to the highest members of the Sanhedrin. He loved them all. NOW, his followers seem ecstatic to see them imprisoned, executed, and roasting in the pits of hell. Some actually seem to be giddy that people will one day pay for their sins.

Take a closer look at your own sins before 'casting stones' at others.

WOW! indeed.

Now, see, this is why I've since changed my opinion on this particular thread. I'd remove my vote, in fact, if I could.

Because I object to the wording. No one's talking about executing homosexuals just for being homosexual. Or at least, if they are point then out so you and I can both rebuke them. You were on point with your post immediately prior to this but then you lost it here. Easy mistake to make, especially with so many seemingly trying very hard to blur the distinction.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now, see, this is why I've since changed my opinion on this particular thread. I'd remove my vote, in fact, if I could.

Because I object to the wording. No one's talking about executing homosexuals just for being homosexual. Or at least, if they are point then out so you and I can both rebuke them. You were on point with your post immediately prior to this but then you lost it here. Easy mistake to make, especially with so many seemingly trying very hard to blur the distinction.

Well I think most are aware that you and others propose execution for homosexual practice by now, but that isn't going to make it any more palatable for most regardless.

 

[Uberpod1]

Because I object to the wording. No one's talking about executing homosexuals just for being homosexual. Or at least, if they are point then out so you and I can both rebuke them. You were on point with your post immediately prior to this but then you lost it here. Easy mistake to make, especially with so many seemingly trying very hard to blur the distinction.

Yes, this is an estute observation. I run into the same thing with people who think I want people who support the death penalty for gays executed; I do not. Only those who show their support behaviorally should have their life taken by the state. :third:

 

[salumiere]

Now, see, this is why I've since changed my opinion on this particular thread. I'd remove my vote, in fact, if I could.

Because I object to the wording. No one's talking about executing homosexuals just for being homosexual. Or at least, if they are point then out so you and I can both rebuke them. You were on point with your post immediately prior to this but then you lost it here. Easy mistake to make, especially with so many seemingly trying very hard to blur the distinction.

Okay.... Here goes.....

The post question was: Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

At first I got off the the spiritual side of the world. I restate my original opinion that G-d will deal with each man/woman according to his holy and immutable Law. That's none of my business anymore that what G-d is going to do with tax cheats, adulterers, gluttons, etc.

Then I assumed (after your post to me) the question in it's most generic format was asking should homosexuals be executed for being homosexual? I think I am justified in assuming that this vague question could be taken this way. To that assumed question I replied 'no' and still hold to that opinion.

If a homosexual commits a sex crime against anyone, then the same laws that apply to heterosexual sex crimes should apply.

I'm not sure why this would be anything other than a simple answer.

Yes the question was a little vague, and took a round-about way of getting answered, but HEY! that makes great fodder for the shifting sands of debate...

:juggle:

 

[MaryContrary]

Yes, this is an estute observation. I run into the same thing with people who think I want people who support the death penalty for gays executed; I do not. Only those who show their support behaviorally should have their life taken by the state. :third:

I believe the homosexual act should be a capitol crime.

There, I just showed my support behaviorally. So come on ahead and we'll see who walks away.

Or...did you mean that those who go out and murder homosexuals should themselves be executed? In that case I'll agree with you completely. They should be executed. That's murder.

But I'd wonder why you're having so much trouble expressing yourself. Is English your first language, Uberpod? I'd always assumed so but now I'm wondering...

 

[Uberpod1]

I believe the homosexual act should be a capitol crime.

i believe the act of rallying others to make it a capitol crime SHOULD BE A CAPITOL CRIME.

There, I just showed my support behaviorally. So come on ahead and we'll see who walks away.

Almost but not quite. You don't believe that people who acknowledge same sex attraction should be killed, right? Sponsor a bill or start taking the legislative steps to make that change, then I will declare that you are fit to die -- by the hands of the state.

Or...did you mean that those who go out and murder homosexuals should themselves be executed? In that case I'll agree with you completely. They should be executed. That's murder.

No, I did not mean that, that's a given just like those who would try to murder you for your actions without trial, etc.

 

[salumiere]

Why would the homosexual act be considered a capital crime? Look at the following list of capital crimes by state. I see a definite pattern of truly heinous crimes inflicted by one person onto another... Not consensual behavior between complicit individuals.

Alabama - Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)).

Arizona - First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)).

Arkansas - Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.

California - First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence.

Colorado - First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping resulting in death; treason.

Connecticut - Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. § 53a-54b).

Delaware - First-degree murder with at least 1 statutory aggravating circumstance (11 Del. C. § 4209).

Florida - First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.

Georgia - Murder; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason.

Idaho - First-degree murder with aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping; perjury resulting in death.

Illinois - First-degree murder with 1 of 21 aggravating circumstances (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-1).

Indiana - Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).

Kansas - Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625, KSA 21-4636).

Kentucky - Murder with aggravating factors; kidnapping with aggravating factors (KRS 32.025).

Louisiana - First-degree murder; treason (La. R.S. 14:30 and 14:113).

Maryland - First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony, provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.

Mississippi - Capital murder (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)); aircraft piracy (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-25-55(1)).

Missouri - First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 2000).

Montana - Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-303); aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-503).

Nebraska - First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.

Nevada - First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).

New Hampshire - Murder committed in the course of rape, kidnapping, or drug crimes; killing of a law enforcement officer; murder for hire; murder by an inmate while serving a sentence of life without parole (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).

New Mexico - First-degree murder with at least 1 of 7 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances (Section 30-2-1 A, NMSA).

New York - First-degree murder with 1 of 13 aggravating factors (NY Penal Law §125.27).

North Carolina - First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17).

Ohio - Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04).

Oklahoma - First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances; sex crimes against a child under 14 years of age.

Oregon - Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).

Pennsylvania - First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.

South Carolina - Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)); criminal sexual conduct with a minor with 1 of 9 aggravators (§ 16-3-655).

South Dakota - First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances.

Revision: Revised the code ~of criminal procedure. Changes included establishing procedures to be
used by circuit judges in determining whether to stop an execution because the inmate is mentally
incompetent (SDCL § 23A-27A-22) and clarifying that persons carrying out executions are immune
from civil and/or criminal liability (SDCL § 23A-27A-31.2), effective 7/1/2008.

Tennessee - First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204).

Texas - Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Tex. Penal Code § 19.03).

Utah - Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated).

Revision: Amended the criminal code to allow aggravating circumstances to be treated as separate acts from the capital offense which can be prosecuted as a separate offense (Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202), effective 2/26/08.

Virginia - First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (VA Code § 18.2-31).

Washington - Aggravated first-degree murder.

Wyoming - First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16.

 

[MaryContrary]

i believe the act of rallying others to make it a capitol crime SHOULD BE A CAPITOL CRIME.

Almost but not quite. You don't believe that people who acknowledge same sex attraction should be killed, right? Sponsor a bill or start taking the legislative steps to make that change, then I will declare that you are fit to die -- by the hands of the state.

No, I did not mean that, that's a given just like those who would try to murder you for your actions without trial, etc.

Maybe you're just losing some of your cognitive capacities as you age.

As desperate as you are to discuss this topic, that you'd jump tracks to a whole other thread to bring it up when you fail to get me involved there...you'd think you'd finally be willing to inject your brain into the debate. But since you aren't...yeah, still not interested.

If you recall, I was one of the first to respond to that thread. And I carried on with you for three of the now-four pages of it. Before I gave up on you. I suggest that if you really are this desperate then you maybe spend five minutes figuring out why I don't think it worth the trouble. I mean, I've been about as clear on that point as I know how to be. If you're still not getting it...

It's pointless discussing pretty much anything with you. You just want to play games. I'm sure it's great fun and all but...not interested. Don't know what else I can say. Except maybe, I dunno, get a life or something. :idunno:

 

[Skavau]

Why do you specifically exclude religious thought from democracy?

Enacting laws based on the will of a God or directives of a belief system just isn't compatible in the slightest with the idea where the power of government is derived from the people.

What if...just tossing something out there for you to ponder over...someone wrote a book. A really good book. A really good, very well written, extremely persuasive book, that convinced a whole lot of people about...something or other. Whatever. And all those people based their votes on this new found belief of theirs, derived from that book. Even formed a party based on the philosophies presented by that book.

You'd have no problem with that, right?

Depends on what the content of the book actually was.

 

[MaryContrary]

Enacting laws based on the will of a God or directives of a belief system just isn't compatible in the slightest with the idea where the power of government is derived from the people.

:doh:

Dude, seriously? You do remember these are people we're talking about, right? Or are you really basing their qualification as "people" on what they base their votes on?

Depends on what the content of the book actually was.

None of your business. :idunno:

It's not democracy if you or anyone else gets to decide what beliefs the people get to determine their votes from. I'm glad your tyranny is limited in this small way rather than being absolute but...only so glad.

 

[Skavau]

:doh:

Dude, seriously? You do remember these are people we're talking about, right? Or are you really basing their qualification as "people" on what they base their votes on?

Sure, you can vote for parties that espouse religious ideas. But like everything, once a religious orientated party has power or direct influence over direct affairs in the nation - the very things that democracy was designed to protect go directly under. That was my point.

None of your business. :idunno:

The irony is delicious.

It's not democracy if you or anyone else gets to decide what beliefs the people get to determine their votes from. I'm glad your tyranny is limited in this small way rather than being absolute but...only so glad.

You asked me whether I, personally would have a problem with a book influencing the masses to vote in a specific way. I don't know whether or not I would myself, have a problem with it - I said it depends on what the book actually was. There was no speak of repression.

And there's something slightly sickening about being called a tyrant by someone that wants to legislate against homosexual intercourse.

 

[MaryContrary]

Sure, you can vote for parties that espouse religious ideas. But like everything, once a religious orientated party has power or direct influence over direct affairs in the nation - the very things that democracy was designed to protect go directly under. That was my point.

Yeah, but you're wrong. So there's that.

What exactly is it about religion as a school of thought that renders it incompatible with political thought? Not a thing. What you're thinking of is religious tyranny. Tyranny itself, actually, religious or no. Tyranny of the sort you've shown yourself already comfortable with personally, so long as those who you agree with wield it. Secular democracy, fr'instance.

The irony is delicious.

Then you missed the point. What is in the book is irrelevant. Your wanting to judge one's right to vote based on it is the point.

You asked me whether I, personally would have a problem with a book influencing the masses to vote in a specific way. I don't know whether or not I would myself, have a problem with it - I said it depends on what the book actually was. There was no speak of repression.

Then you're a hypocrite. You need to know what's in the book before you decide whether someone who believes it should be allowed to vote based upon it. Not your decision, not your place. You'd wield tyranny to refuse others the right to vote for fear they'd enact a tyranny. :dizzy:

And there's something slightly sickening about being called a tyrant by someone that wants to legislate against homosexual intercourse.

The irony here is...

Yeah, I won't say "delicious". Because that's kinda stupid. But it is funny.

Your secular democracy is an oxymoron.

 

[Skavau]

What exactly is it about religion as a school of thought that renders it incompatible with political thought? Not a thing. What you're thinking of is religious tyranny.

It isn't incompatible with political thought. It is incompatible with secular and humanist ideals and certainly has no redeeming features in a multi-cultural society where people of differing religious beliefs (or none at all) would be tied down and constrained by people's other metaphysical beliefs.

Tyranny itself, actually, religious or no. Tyranny of the sort you've shown yourself already comfortable with personally, so long as those who you agree with wield it. Secular democracy, fr'instance.

Secular democracy is not tyranny. I await your misconceptions as you likely attempt to show how it is.

Then you missed the point. What is in the book is irrelevant. Your wanting to judge one's right to vote based on it is the point.

What? You are lying. Again, I never actually stated any removal of people's rights to vote. I said that I wouldn't know whether or not I would myself, have a problem with it as I would need to know at least some basic information about the book before I could judge further. There was no talk of any removal of rights.

In any case, of course I actually judge people's reasons for who they vote for. This is not the same as denying them the said right.

Then you're a hypocrite. You need to know what's in the book before you decide whether someone who believes it should be allowed to vote based upon it. Not your decision, not your place. You'd wield tyranny to refuse others the right to vote for fear they'd enact a tyranny.

First of all, I did directly say that I would need to know what the book was before I could come to any decision. For some reason you have directly taken that as me simply wanting to know the title of the book before prejuding, or something. So as you're semantically challenged - I'd need to know the contents of the book or at least some basic information about the book.

Second of all, I never spoke of repressing anyone's right to vote. This is the second you've lied about me saying that.

The irony here is...

Yeah, I won't say "delicious". Because that's kinda stupid. But it is funny.

Your secular democracy is an oxymoron.

So far it is 1-0 to me. You're on record for the desire to prohibit what people can do in their bedroom (with the added penalty of capital punishment, of course). I am not on record for anything like that.

 

[Ktoyou]

Wyoming - First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16.

So, in Wyoming, can one be put to death for a nonlethal robbery? What about escape from prison? I would assume a death would be involved.

 

[MaryContrary]

It isn't incompatible with political thought. It is incompatible with secular and humanist ideals...

Great. Who cares? Besides you, I mean. Not everyone in a democracy of any sort will be secular and/or humanist. So who votes for them? In a secular democracy...no one does. Worse, they're forced to vote against themselves if they vote at all. This is what you're advocating.

...and certainly has no redeeming features in a multi-cultural society where people of differing religious beliefs (or none at all) would be tied down and constrained by people's other metaphysical beliefs.

Yeah, that's called democracy. You know, the other democracy. The one that doesn't limit itself only to representing a particular group or belief.

Secular democracy is not tyranny. I await your misconceptions as you likely attempt to show how it is.

Why? If you're this stupid then I don't see the point.

No, seriously. If you can't see that a secular democracy imposes values on those it doesn't even pretend to represent then there's no point in trying to make that any clearer to you.

What? You are lying. Again, I never actually stated any removal of people's rights to vote. I said that I wouldn't know whether or not I would myself, have a problem with it as I would need to know at least some basic information about the book before I could judge further. There was no talk of any removal of rights.

In any case, of course I actually judge people's reasons for who they vote for. This is not the same as denying them the said right.

Secular democracy, the thing you advocate here, imposes that tyranny. By supporting it you support that tyranny. Denounce secular democracy and I'll retract my accusation. Until then, it stands. :idunno:

First of all, I did directly say that I would need to know what the book was before I could come to any decision. For some reason you have directly taken that as me simply wanting to know the title of the book before prejuding, or something. So as you're semantically challenged - I'd need to know the contents of the book or at least some basic information about the book.

Second of all, I never spoke of repressing anyone's right to vote. This is the second you've lied about me saying that.

You support secular democracy, which does indeed limit one's right to vote to only secular ideals. Gabble in outrage all you want. In fact, I'm glad that you do. At least you're able to recognize that it's wrong. Now all you have to do is realize this thing you advocate does that and we'll be a hop, skip and a jump from you denouncing secular democracy.

So far it is 1-0 to me. You're on record for the desire to prohibit what people can do in their bedroom (with the added penalty of capital punishment, of course). I am not on record for anything like that.

I'll be impressed when you follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion. Until you're able to do that then your claiming the moral high ground doesn't amount to much.

 

[salumiere]

Wyoming - First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16.

So, in Wyoming, can one be put to death for a nonlethal robbery? What about escape from prison? I would assume a death would be involved.

This is an assumption from an admittedly non-legal type, but I think you have to commit murder (second degree or otherwise) during the commission of one of those listed items like arson, robbery, etc.... Please don't quote me on that. I'm not smart enough to be a lawyer.:kookoo:

 

[Skavau]

Great. Who cares? Besides you, I mean. Not everyone in a democracy of any sort will be secular and/or humanist. So who votes for them? In a secular democracy...no one does. Worse, they're forced to vote against themselves if they vote at all. This is what you're advocating.

I have no idea what the part starting from "worse" means. In any case, millions and millions of people who value humanist and secular ideals care about their persistency.

Yeah, that's called democracy. You know, the other democracy. The one that doesn't limit itself only to representing a particular group or belief.

What are you talking about? Secularism is removal of religious monopoly or influence upon politics. That if anything doesn't represent a particular group of belief. Humanism as well is specifically focused on promoting the well-being and success of humans per se (hence the name).

Why? If you're this stupid then I don't see the point.

No, seriously. If you can't see that a secular democracy imposes values on those it doesn't even pretend to represent then there's no point in trying to make that any clearer to you.

So go ahead and make complete non-points then and demean anyone who disagrees. I'll watch as you continue on passive-aggressively.

Secular democracy, the thing you advocate here, imposes that tyranny. By supporting it you support that tyranny. Denounce secular democracy and I'll retract my accusation. Until then, it stands.

Not until you provide evidence that secular democracy in and of itself happens to be tyrannical. Moreover, I also describe myself as a humanist and at times libertarian.

You support secular democracy, which does indeed limit one's right to vote to only secular ideals.

What? That political party is not secular, and yet they were able to stand for parliament.

Oh, and then of course there is the following.

Gabble in outrage all you want. In fact, I'm glad that you do. At least you're able to recognize that it's wrong. Now all you have to do is realize this thing you advocate does that and we'll be a hop, skip and a jump from you denouncing secular democracy.

Why would anyone denounce anything without reason to denounce it? Perhaps I'll just insist repeatedly that you denounce evangelical Christianity because I consider it totalitarian. I won't bother to explain myself, but I'll declare it anyone.

Moreover, what form of governance do you imagine a non-religious individual should or would support?

I'll be impressed when you follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion. Until you're able to do that then your claiming the moral high ground doesn't amount to much.

You didn't argue against your own tyranny (which you're on record for). Interesting.

 

[WizardofOz]

Your secular democracy is an oxymoron.

No, seriously. If you can't see that a secular democracy imposes values on those it doesn't even pretend to represent then there's no point in trying to make that any clearer to you.

You support secular democracy, which does indeed limit one's right to vote to only secular ideals.

:doh:
Wessex Man? Are you back?

No? Well, neither of you know what "secular" means in regard to government, so I hope you'll understand my confusion.

A secular democracy doesn't limit ones' right to vote.....that's the whole point. BTW - The United States government is not a democracy. Ask Lighthouse about this if you're confused.

thankxbye

 

[MaryContrary]

I have no idea...:blabla:... Interesting.

I can't decide if you really are as dense as you seem to be or if you just expect everyone else is too stupid to follow along. But just in case you are stupid I'll try to put it simply. By barring religion from the political process, you eject a large part of what motivates the majority of voters from that process. By refusing them the right to vote based on religious beliefs, you refuse them the right to vote as they believe. You limit the choices available to voters to only those you find acceptable, regardless of what the people themselves find acceptable. That is tyrannical.

I really don't know how to put it any simpler. If you still pretend not to get this I'm going to just accept that you're both blatantly dishonest and insulting the intelligence of every single person that reads this thread. However, if you prefer that I claim you're a blithering idiot instead, just say so. I would agree that'd be nicer and would be giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just going on the assumption that you'd rather be a liar than an idiot.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can't decide if you really are as dense as you seem to be or if you just expect everyone else is too stupid to follow along. But just in case you are stupid I'll try to put it simply. By barring religion from the political process, you eject a large part of what motivates the majority of voters from that process. By refusing them the right to vote based on religious beliefs, you refuse them the right to vote as they believe. You limit the choices available to voters to only those you find acceptable, regardless of what the people themselves find acceptable. That is tyrannical.

I really don't know how to put it any simpler. If you still pretend not to get this I'm going to just accept that you're both blatantly dishonest and insulting the intelligence of every single person that reads this thread. However, if you prefer that I claim you're a blithering idiot instead, just say so. I would agree that'd be nicer and would be giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just going on the assumption that you'd rather be a liar than an idiot.

Mary, first off it's rather presumptive to state that religion plays a majority part in regards to motivation in terms of the actual vote isn't it?

Secondly, lets just say that you actually had your way and homosexual practice was implemented as a capital crime. Then society in general railed against it and were in favour of it being abolished (including Christians). Would you be in favour of it being put to the vote for the people to have their say?