Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Skavau]

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.

Secularism is a ideal that bars the state from enacting legislation based on religious instruction. It is designed to protect the population from theocratic mandates about how they should live their lives, and protects a Christian just as much as it protects an atheist. You are effectively complaining that secularism denies people the right to insist upon the state run itself and its citizens according to religious grounds, which is about as ridiculous as a would-be dictators complaining that the democratic movement undermines his liberty to rule over everyone.

Nonetheless, religious parties do exist and en masse in many secular states. So what is your point? Secularism should be outlined in state constitutions to protect people's liberties from intrusion by those claiming to be on the side of God - and it is.

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.

When will you stop lying? In the last election in the United Kingdom people had the liberty to vote for the Christian Party, or the Christian People's Alliance (if they stood in their constituency). I had and have no problem with that, as I have told you at least three times now. In addition, I don't even have any problem with people voting for nationalistic parties even though the whole notion of 'nationalism' revolts me.

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.

It is ironic that someone who is claiming I am out to restrict people's rights to vote (which is a lie, and now I might add a willful one given the amount of clarification I have given) is accusing me of dishonesty.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

What would you do if you it was made law? What would you then advocate toward the legislators and the government officials responsible for enacting it into law?

: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

What does it take for someone to get on the ballot? Can they do it one time and get on every ballot in the country [supposing they are running for a national office]?

 

[Uberpod1]

What would you do if you it was made law?

:sam: I guess we'd start offing people like you -- if you acted upon your desires instrumentally.

What would you then advocate toward the legislators and the government officials responsible for enacting it into law?

Probably death as well. What's good for the goose. . .

 

[Granite]

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?

She's uncomfortable trying to figure out what a society that outlawed it would really look like and plays either naive or dumb when asked to contemplate the consequences, so, lotsa luck.

 

[MaryContrary]

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?

Overall? Yes. For many individuals? No.

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?

You seem to be assuming we're talking about ramming the law down people's throats. We're talking about a democracy, aren't we? So I'm assuming the law was passed like any other and could be overturned like any other. Why do you assume differently?

Secularism is a ideal that bars the state from enacting legislation based on religious instruction. It is designed to protect the population from theocratic mandates about how they should live their lives, and protects a Christian just as much as it protects an atheist. You are effectively complaining that secularism denies people the right to insist upon the state run itself and its citizens according to religious grounds, which is about as ridiculous as a would-be dictators complaining that the democratic movement undermines his liberty to rule over everyone.

Nonetheless, religious parties do exist and en masse in many secular states. So what is your point? Secularism should be outlined in state constitutions to protect people's liberties from intrusion by those claiming to be on the side of God - and it is.

When will you stop lying? In the last election in the United Kingdom people had the liberty to vote for the Christian Party, or the Christian People's Alliance (if they stood in their constituency). I had and have no problem with that, as I have told you at least three times now. In addition, I don't even have any problem with people voting for nationalistic parties even though the whole notion of 'nationalism' revolts me.

It is ironic that someone who is claiming I am out to restrict people's rights to vote (which is a lie, and now I might add a willful one given the amount of clarification I have given) is accusing me of dishonesty.

I think you've lost track of your own stance. Try going back to when you first brought up the subject with LMOHM. There you questioned him about his motivations for supporting outlawing the homosexual act, as if it mattered. Even when he clearly stated he did not support any form of theocratic government you continued to argue the point. And this: "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."

So if your position has changed to merely rejecting theocratic government while being perfectly comfortable with folks voting according to their individual religious beliefs...then we're done. Thanks, have a nice day.

 

[MaryContrary]

She's uncomfortable trying to figure out what a society that outlawed it would really look like and plays either naive or dumb when asked to contemplate the consequences, so, lotsa luck.

Granite's a real powerhouse around here. He's definitely got this debate stuff pegged, so you should totally listen to him and take his advice to heart. Seriously, we won't stand a chance.

 

[Granite]

Granite's a real powerhouse around here. He's definitely got this debate stuff pegged, so you should totally listen to him and take his advice to heart. Seriously, we won't stand a chance.

:cheers:

Thanks. You're learning.

In summary, class: executing folks on the basis of their sexual orientation is a monstrous, barbaric, downright medieval abomination, and shouldn't be countenanced by any society. Especially a supposedly civilized one.

 

[MaryContrary]

:cheers:

Thanks. You're learning.

In summary, class: executing folks on the basis of their sexual orientation is a monstrous, barbaric, downright medieval abomination, and shouldn't be countenanced by any society. Especially a supposedly civilized one.

Yeah, not a great example of what I was talking about considering no one has supported any such thing.

But usually he's awesome. Trust me. This is just the rare exception that proves the rule. Or something. Yeah.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Overall? Yes. For many individuals? No.

I'd actually see that in reverse but it's speculation either way.

You seem to be assuming we're talking about ramming the law down people's throats. We're talking about a democracy, aren't we? So I'm assuming the law was passed like any other and could be overturned like any other. Why do you assume differently?

Well to get the law in place you'd have to overthrow democracy to start off with if you're realistic about this. So I was trying to get a handle on just how much say you believe should be afforded to the public.

 

[Skavau]

I think you've lost track of your own stance. Try going back to when you first brought up the subject with LMOHM. There you questioned him about his motivations for supporting outlawing the homosexual act, as if it mattered. Even when he clearly stated he did not support any form of theocratic government you continued to argue the point. And this: "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."

So if your position has changed to merely rejecting theocratic government while being perfectly comfortable with folks voting according to their individual religious beliefs...then we're done. Thanks, have a nice day.

And I stand to that. It doesn't mean I want to prohibit self-proclaimed religious parties from standing for office. Just means I would consider it anti-democratic if they got into office and starting trying to mould the country into representing their religious beliefs.

 

[MaryContrary]

I'd actually see that in reverse but it's speculation either way.

I guess I wasn't clear.

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?

Overall? Yes. For many individuals? No.

Yes, I agree with you that in general religion probably isn't a major motivator for the voting masses overall. It is however for many individual people, who have every right to vote that way. The secular democracy you guys are touting denies those people that right. I'd love to argue why and whether that's reasonable but that would require you guys daring to admit that much first.

Well to get the law in place you'd have to overthrow democracy to start off with if you're realistic about this. So I was trying to get a handle on just how much say you believe should be afforded to the public.

And again another weird assumption (or maybe the same one?), that by advocating something you disagree with then I must be willing to overthrow democracy to accomplish that. I'm not interested in that, thanks.

I think you're having trouble recognizing that I've actually applied reason in coming to this conclusion. I honestly hope you don't just go around assuming everyone who disagrees with you in any drastic fashion must be a dangerous lunat...oh, wait.

Never mind. Come to think of it, that's exactly the impression I get from you pretty often. Dude, you should maybe work on that.

 

[MaryContrary]

And I stand to that. It doesn't mean I want to prohibit self-proclaimed religious parties from standing for office. Just means I would consider it anti-democratic if they got into office and starting trying to mould the country into representing their religious beliefs.

:doh:

It would be anti-democratic if they were voted into office. Really. lain:

You, sir, are a moron. Have a nice day.

 

[Skavau]

:doh:

It would be anti-democratic if they were voted into office. Really. lain:

You, sir, are a moron. Have a nice day.

I would consider it "anti-democratic if they got into office and started trying to mould the country into representing their religious beliefs." (Granted, I just noticed I originally typed 'starting' instead of 'started')

Also, do you end with "Have a nice day" in the hope you'll get the last retort or something? Almost every post of yours seems to end with it as you're ending the communication or hoping the other will.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I guess I wasn't clear.

Yes, I agree with you that in general religion probably isn't a major motivator for the voting masses overall. It is however for many individuals people, who have every right to vote that way. The secular democracy you guys are touting denies those people that right. I'd love to argue why and whether that's reasonable but that would require you guys daring to admit that much first.

Well then let me be just as clear with you in return because you're making your own assumptions. I support democracy. That applies to everyone not just 'secularists'. I support the right for you and anyone else to form their own parties, vote for what you believe in etc etc etc.

We have a Christian party in the UK for a start and everyone is free to vote for whoever they see fit, from the 'major' parties to the most obscure. We have a nationalist party in this country which I strongly disagree with, but I would always support the rights of that party to exist along with the freedom to vote for it regardless of how whacked out I might personally find their policies. So please quit assuming so much yourself before you go pointing the finger.

And again another weird assumption (or maybe the same one?), that by advocating something you disagree with then I must be willing to overthrow democracy to accomplish that. I'm not interested in that, thanks.

I think you're having trouble recognizing that I've actually applied reason in coming to this conclusion. I honestly hope you don't just go around assuming everyone who disagrees with you in any drastic fashion must be a dangerous lunat...oh, wait.

Never mind. Come to think of it, that's exactly the impression I get from you pretty often. Dude, you should maybe work on that.

Once again you've made your own faulty assumptions. I was simply pointing out that for you to have the laws implemented you approve of it would realistically involve the dismantling of democracy as we know it. If you were honest I think you'd agree with that, unless you think you'd somehow get enough support to have such a law passed?

 

[aSeattleConserv]

In summary, class: executing folks on the basis of their sexual orientation is a monstrous, barbaric, downright medieval abomination, and shouldn't be countenanced by any society. Especially a supposedly civilized one.

Yet Fido has no problem with the "monstrous, barbaric, downright medieval" God-given rights that the Founding Fathers gave us (freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc etc. etc).

Let's see how the Founding Fathers (those monstrous barbarians) felt about a lifestyle that every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral and destructive from a spiritual and emotional -- and certainly a physical standpoint:

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.
NEW YORK

Etc. etc. etc.

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-fathers-and-homosexuality.html

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20

 

[Lighthouse]

:sam: I guess we'd start offing people like you -- if you acted upon your desires instrumentally. Probably death as well. What's good for the goose. . .

You mean, if I was the legally sanctioned executioner of homosexuals.

Or are you so exceptionally stupid you didn't get that's what I meant?

Let me reiterate for the brain dead: What would you do if the criminalization of homosexuality to the extent it was a capital crime were enacted into law?

 

[Granite]

Yet Fido has no problem with the "monstrous, barbaric, downright medieval" God-given rights that the Founding Fathers gave us (freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc etc. etc).

Let's see how the Founding Fathers (those monstrous barbarians) felt about a lifestyle that every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral and destructive from a spiritual and emotional -- and certainly a physical standpoint:

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.
NEW YORK

Etc. etc. etc.

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-fathers-and-homosexuality.html

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20

All due respect, you twisted supposed cop, but who cares what you think? I'm not interested in some bigot's opinion, especially one with sexual confusion like yours.

 

[zoo22]

For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.
NEW YORK

Etc. etc. etc.

And we all know Jefferson didn't have any faults or, um, vast misjudgments related to the times.

Also, does it hurt with your knees jerking around so much? It must be rough... My condolences.

Crazy legs

 

[MaryContrary]

I would consider it "anti-democratic if they got into office and started trying to mould the country into representing their religious beliefs." (Granted, I just noticed I originally typed 'starting' instead of 'started')

Unless that's what they were elected to do.

The fact remains that you don't want religion to have any part in government. Which is fine, except you can't believe that and embrace democracy so long as any portion of the people are religious people. This is why you trot out the oxymoronic secular democracy, trying to have it both ways. There's just no such thing.

Also, do you end with "Have a nice day" in the hope you'll get the last retort or something? Almost every post of yours seems to end with it as you're ending the communication or hoping the other will.

Seriously? You're having trouble with "You, sir, are a moron. Have a nice day." It's intended to get the point across that you're wasting my time by refusing to think. Like, for example, the time I just spent explaining something that should have been obvious.

 

[MaryContrary]

Well then let me be just as clear with you in return because you're making your own assumptions. I support democracy. That applies to everyone not just 'secularists'. I support the right for you and anyone else to form their own parties, vote for what you believe in etc etc etc.

We have a Christian party in the UK for a start and everyone is free to vote for whoever they see fit, from the 'major' parties to the most obscure. We have a nationalist party in this country which I strongly disagree with, but I would always support the rights of that party to exist along with the freedom to vote for it regardless of how whacked out I might personally find their policies. So please quit assuming so much yourself before you go pointing the finger.

Great. Then you reject secular democracy as un-democratic then. Awesome. What were we even arguing about? :liberals:

Once again you've made your own faulty assumptions. I was simply pointing out that for you to have the laws implemented you approve of it would realistically involve the dismantling of democracy as we know it. If you were honest I think you'd agree with that, unless you think you'd somehow get enough support to have such a law passed?

What's any of that got to do with anything? :squint:

And, dude, how is this a faulty assumption? I notice you never actually explained why you think this is at all relevant, even when I offered the assumption you're taking exception to here. I'm even forced to ask why this matters, if not for the reason I offered already.

What exactly am I supposed to think you're arguing this irrelevant point for? I can come up with some other explanations, if you like. Maybe you're waiting for me to guess. How about...you predicate what you support based on your estimation of popular support? And, so, can't imagine supporting anything that can't be expected to be popular with others? How about that? Is that it?