Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[the Biscuit]

No..and to me, it's kinda scarey that you would even have a poll on this (??).

You mention: "..given the death penalty"... by who? Which one of us is going to be the one to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong".. who should live and who should die?

This type of thinking is what has kept me away from so many religious groups and conversations. I find it terrrifying that people would even consider it.

 

[Nydhogg]

Really? Where?

And do you then think it is perfectly okay for those who are not Christians to commit adultery?

Why not? Technically it ain't going to make them more damned.

And that's the very point of why applying Biblical law to people not subject to it (gentiles) is stupid. It serves no purpose at all.

Enforce your silly religious laws on your silly little extremist sect, if people actually choose to join it. And leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why not? Technically it ain't going to make them more damned.

I'm not speaking in regard to God. Is adultery wrong, or not?

And that's the very point of why applying Biblical law to people not subject to it (gentiles) is stupid. It serves no purpose at all.

This isn't about applying Biblical law to anyone in regard to damnation on a spiritual level. This is about laws that are good for a society, period. Who cares where else those laws may be found?

Enforce your silly religious laws on your silly little extremist sect, if people actually choose to join it. And leave the rest of us alone.

Name one religious law I want to see enforced. Go ahead.

 

[WizardofOz]

Leviticus. Part of a covenant directly with the Israelites.
First, Leviticus does not apply to Christians. That commandment has been replaced by "from these turn away".

Second, Leviticus has not ever applied to ANYONE who is not an Israelite. Which is kinda, sorta obvious. It's not part of the Noachide covenant, and it's not even part of the covenant of Abraham (which does not apply to gentiles although it might apply to Christians)

Applying Levitical law to non-believers would be simply and plainly unscriptural (aside from theocracy being generally morally wrong and overall sucking as a system of governance.)

:first:

 

[Nydhogg]

Wrong. You're basing what's "good for society" on Biblical law. You're being disingenuous.

Society decides what's right and wrong for it. You're pushing for theonomy, so don't tell me you don't want to enforce religious law. Hypocrite.

Leviticus is, as we all probably know, part of the Mosaic Covenant, not even part of the Covenant of Abraham. Calls for executing homosexuals according to levitical law are (aside from tyrannical and morally wrong) Unscriptural to boot.

 

[Nydhogg]

Oh, I sorta forgot: If you're not pushing for enforcing religious law on people who are NOT UNDER ANY COVENANT, good sir, why the Hell do you tell me many moral prohibitions are based on Leviticus?

Gentiles are to be ruled by their own laws. It is a principle to stay silent where the Bible is silent, and God never calls for applying Levitical or even Abrahamic law to gentiles!
The ONLY gentiles even somewhat subjected to Levitical Law are those who are living in the Promised Land amongst the Israelites. Whatever the USA is, the Holy Land it ain't.

(Aside from the prohibition against murder which they're directly enjoined by God to apply by the Bible)


Theonomy killed with Scriptural arguments. Unless you openly admit that you're entitled to take dominion over the gentiles. Come on. Show your true colors, theocrat.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

Lighthouse, the level of insane absurdity you're at is more mysterious than gravity itself.

 

[Hold Fast]

[Jesus]“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 10:34

Ha, I knew this is precisely the verse you would drum up. Yet, if you read a little further, it becomes quite evident that a sword will be brought by Jesus, but not used by him. He talks of how, because of Christians, families will break apart and brothers will no longer like each other and whatnot.

You may see it otherwise, but when a great multitude of Jesus's teachings point towards be at peace with folks...not killing them...I think we accurately assume I'm correct.

 

[deuteronomy_23:1]

Anyone who says gays deserve the death penalty must also think anyone who works on the sabbath or disobeys their parents must die also.

 

[MaryContrary]

Anyone who says gays deserve the death penalty must also think anyone who works on the sabbath or disobeys their parents must die also.

Unless you're mixing up those laws intended only for Israel and those that are valid for everyone, everywhere.

And gays don't "deserve death" under Mosaic law. Just those folks, homo or no, that engage in the homosexual act.

 

[Granite]

And gays don't "deserve death" under Mosaic law. Just those folks, homo or no, that engage in the homosexual act.

Why does this seem so much like an attempt to have it both ways?

 

[MaryContrary]

Why does this seem so much like an attempt to have it both ways?

Because you can't grasp objectivity? Fail to differentiate between the thing you so love accusing us all of and what we're constantly affirming as our position? Maybe that?

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

So Mary, me being new here do you think that homosexuals should be given the death penalty? I'm just trying to catch up.

 

[MaryContrary]

So Mary, me being new here do you think that homosexuals should be given the death penalty? I'm just trying to catch up.

I think the homosexual act should be criminalized, a capitol crime. So, yes. If they commit that act. Just as anyone else who did so.

And, before you ask or assume (so I assume :chuckle, not because "God says so" but for the reasons He says so. Because it's just that destructive to society and requires just that high level a deterrence.

 

[Granite]

Because you can't grasp objectivity? Fail to differentiate between the thing you so love accusing us all of and what we're constantly affirming as our position? Maybe that?

It's how you differentiate this issue, sure, but you guys hardly speak as one voice on this (or much else). It's just a ridiculous and bizarre position to hold, to say nothing of being naive, impractical, and inconsistent.

And it's a classic example of trying to have one's cake and eating it too. "Do anything you want, even in public, except consummate with someone of the same gender, and you're good to go. And we'll just let you go on your gay merry way." Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[MaryContrary]

It's how you differentiate this issue, sure, but you guys hardly speak as one voice on this (or much else). It's just a ridiculous and bizarre position to hold, to say nothing of being naive, impractical, and inconsistent.

And it's a classic example of trying to have one's cake and eating it too. "Do anything you want, even in public, except consummate with someone of the same gender, and you're good to go. And we'll just let you go on your gay merry way." Riiiiiiiiight.

I think your cognitive dissonance has thrown you into some confusion here. What's "ridiculous, bizarre, naive, impractical and inconsistant"? The thing you accuse of, the position I claim or the vague position some other people you reference but don't name hold to? And which is the "classic example" regarding cake? I've got a feeling you've muddled all those things up a bit. :liberals:

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

I think the homosexual act should be criminalized, a capitol crime. So, yes. If they commit that act. Just as anyone else who did so.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a homosexual who thinks that homosexuality should be criminalized? If not, could you explain more so I don't get things mixed up by accident? If so, could you explain how you live with these two very contradictory elements?

 

[Nydhogg]

I think the homosexual act should be criminalized, a capitol crime. So, yes. If they commit that act. Just as anyone else who did so.

And, before you ask or assume (so I assume :chuckle, not because "God says so" but for the reasons He says so. Because it's just that destructive to society and requires just that high level a deterrence.

The only capital crimes a civilized society ever has are murder, aggravated rape, and treason.

For the reasons He says so? A convoluted way to applying Mosaic law to non-believers, Mary. You're out-tyrannying the big Tyrant in the Sky.

 

[MaryContrary]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a homosexual who thinks that homosexuality should be criminalized? If not, could you explain more so I don't get things mixed up by accident? If so, could you explain how you live with these two very contradictory elements?

Okay, would you find someone supporting the criminalization of prostitution or pornography as confusing? Your average sexually healthy individual could easily enjoy either of those things. Nothing stopping them from deciding to do so but their personal perspective on whether or not that'd be wrong. Which would be heavily influenced, both the perspective and the decision, by whether either were illegal, as well as the punishment attached to each.

Pushing it out a bit further, one could likewise be human, and thus perfectly capable of committing murder, yet still agree that murder should be outlawed. See where I'm going?

There is and should be no crime against being a homosexual for exactly the same reasons we don't criminalize heterosexuality or even the capacity for murder. It's the act, of course, that we would outlaw.

As far as how I personally live with this now? As I would if murder and prostitution were legal. And if it were outlawed? As I do murder and prostitution being illegal. In either case I refrain from murder or soliciting prostitutes. And I encourage others to do likewise. And, of course, in the case where it is legal, advocate for both being criminalized as well, recognizing their danger to society.

 

[MaryContrary]

The only capital crimes a civilized society ever has are murder, aggravated rape, and treason.

Are you determining "civilized" status based on this criteria? :think:

For the reasons He says so? A convoluted way to applying Mosaic law to non-believers, Mary.

Not really. If it's dangerous to society, enough that it warrants that level of criminalization, then I'm just agreeing with Him on that point. Not so convoluted.

You're out-tyrannying the big Tyrant in the Sky.

Depends on what you view as "tyranny", don't it? I get the impression you apply the term pretty liberally.