Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Mr.Razorblades]

Okay, would you find someone supporting the criminalization of prostitution or pornography as confusing?

I don't think prostituition by a consenting adult should be criminalized ,as well as pornography. There are various levels to both but those would be exceptions and would therefore require further examination.

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?

Do you think murder in self defense is still murder and if it is considered murder should humans stop defending themselves outright? Humans are capable of many things but the criminalization of said act should only be considered if it brings intentional bodily harm to other humans.

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.

I'm not understanding why you think it should be criminalized though. If we criminalize an act between two consenting adults then we will need to criminalize a lot more than what the original criminalization was for and this would lead to utter mayhem.

And, of course, in the case where it is legal, advocate for both being criminalized as well, recognizing their danger to society.

So in essence you think the act of homosexuality should be criminalized because it is harmful to society. Is this correct? If it is correct then do you have any supporting evidence to validate the claim that the act of homosexuality is detremental to society?

 

[WizardofOz]

A lot of equivocation and deflection going on here......as usual.

It's not the desire to outlaw homosexual acts so much as the proposed (capital) punishment for these acts that has most people slinging mud.

Why death, that's the question.

We know it's the act, not the desire. We get it.
We know it's "strictly political" and not religious. Sure, if you say so.

But why capital punishment? I.e the title of the thread is "Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?"

Can someone translate for me?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

A lot of equivocation and deflection going on here......as usual.

It's not the desire to outlaw homosexual acts so much as the proposed (capital) punishment for these acts that has most people slinging mud.

Why death, that's the question.

We know it's the act, not the desire. We get it.
We know it's "strictly political" and not religious. Sure, if you say so.

But why capital punishment? I.e the title of the thread is "Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?"

Can someone translate for me?

Not without admitting that it is in fact religious and not political...

 

[MaryContrary]

I don't think prostituition by a consenting adult should be criminalized ,as well as pornography. There are various levels to both but those would be exceptions and would therefore require further examination.

Doesn't answer my question, though. Would you be as confused at someone who is otherwise perfectly capable of murder, soliciting prostitution or enjoying pornography supporting the criminalization of any or all of those things? If not, then a homosexual supporting the criminalization of the homosexual act shouldn't surprise you, in and of itself.

Do you think murder in self defense is still murder and if it is considered murder should humans stop defending themselves outright?

Defending yourself is not murder. Even if your self-defense requires killing the one threatening you, so long as that threat is to your own life.

Humans are capable of many things but the criminalization of said act should only be considered if it brings intentional bodily harm to other humans.

We have plenty of laws criminalizing acts that don't bring intentional bodily harm to others. We have capital crimes at the federal level that don't, in fact.

Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))

I'm not understanding why you think it should be criminalized though. If we criminalize an act between two consenting adults then we will need to criminalize a lot more than what the original criminalization was for and this would lead to utter mayhem.

Not at all. Where do you get that idea? We outlaw suicide without criminalizing all manner of things that might lead to it or are associated with it, and that's an act requiring no more consent than one's own.

So in essence you think the act of homosexuality should be criminalized because it is harmful to society. Is this correct? If it is correct then do you have any supporting evidence to validate the claim that the act of homosexuality is detremental to society?

Pardon my laziness here but I'm in the middle of a couple of things RL.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2008259&postcount=274

If you're really interested in this topic, I suggest these two as well if you find yourself with time to go over them.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42422
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22483&highlight=homosexuals+death+penalty

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

Doesn't answer my question, though. Would you be as confused at someone who is otherwise perfectly capable of murder, soliciting prostitution or enjoying pornography supporting the criminalization of any or all of those things? If not, then a homosexual supporting the criminalization of the homosexual act shouldn't surprise you, in and of itself.

Well then, yes it does suprise me.

Defending yourself is not murder. Even if your self-defense requires killing the one threatening you, so long as that threat is to your own life.

So if during a hostage negotiation an officer kills someone who was not a direct threat to their life but was a direct threat to the individual they were holding as a hostage would this be considered murder or defense?

We have plenty of laws criminalizing acts that don't bring intentional bodily harm to others. We have capital crimes at the federal level that don't, in fact.

Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))

Espionage is selling secrets. If those secrets allow an enemy to build a weapon that is then used to physicall kill or harm other individuals then the person doing the selling is directly related to this act. That is why it is criminalized.

Treason, see above.

Trafficking. I'd have to do more research on this one.

Attempting...DIRECTLY harms an individual. I don't see how you are saying that this does not cause physical harm. It is criminalized because it causes intentional physical harm.

I'll get to the rest later. I got to go to school.

 

[Nydhogg]

I do not worship current federal law. DC is so intrusive that I'd support completely abolishing the federal government.

As for the war on drugs, it's authoritarian, expensive, erodes all our freedoms (you wouldn't imagine HOW strict the Fourth Amendment was applied before they maked searches easier to punish people for doing drugs) and is generally bad policy.

 

[WizardofOz]

If you're really interested in this topic, I suggest these two as well if you find yourself with time to go over them.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42422

From that link, this tells it all.

What if it was a capitol crime and I'd been living in that environment for the past 20+ years? Well I probably wouldn't have done a lot of the things I've done. In fact it's safe bet I wouldn't have met my first girlfriend.
Most probably in fact I would never have had even my first homosexual encounter at all. I'd have likely lived my life miserable and hating myself because there was something terribly wrong with me and feeling as if I was the only one in the world like that. I would have been some rare and practically unknown phenomenon with no treatment or cure or hope. No one would know about these feelings I have and it'd be a terrible secret I took to my grave.
I still think I would have been saved and become a Christian. I can't see how that would have changed. In fact it would have made it a lot more likely I think. Probably would have picked up a bible a lot sooner.
[Edit: Strike that. I absolutely would have.]
So I compare the last 20+ years to the years I would have spent under the threat of the death penalty for homosexual behavior.
Honestly. I would have preferred that life. The one I've had up to fairly recently hasn't been simply miserable and lost it's been pure unadulterated hellish torture that I still cannot believe I ever survived.
So I have my answer I just really don't like it because it says basically that I was (and still largely am) so screwed up it takes someone putting a gun to my head to make me form a rational course of action for my life.

If only big brother would have been more strict in regard to homosexuality then all this pain and self-loathing could have possibly been avoided.

If only big brother had been more strict, then "reformed" homosexuals maybe, just maybe could have had the life they now wish they had lived.

If only big brother could now be as strict as possible in regard to homosexuality, then the reformed can see that part of themselves, which they now hate, be destroyed time and time again each time a homosexual is persecuted and put to death.

If only big brother could have been there to save you.....save you from yourself, then all these "me" issues could have been avoided.

:sigh:

Just lie down on the couch and tell me all about it. I'll let you know when the hour is up. :up:

 

[Nydhogg]

Mary, the problem is, you're willing to impose criminal penalties to make people not do things you think are bad to society simply because they're sinful.

Look at Iran. Essentially what you're proposing is life like that. Remove the hijab, and Iran is basically what you're proposing. Is that your idea of good government?

 

[WizardofOz]

Mary, the problem is, you're willing to impose criminal penalties to make people not do things you think are bad to society simply because they're sinful.

This is when a flurry of studies will be cited, all showing homosexuality in a detrimental light.

Just a hunch.

 

[Lighthouse]

I assume the two following posts from Nydhogg were directed to me:

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

I believe certain things are good for society. I found those same views in the Bible. How is that 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.

How is it theonomy?

And right and wrong are right and wrong. They are absolutes, not relative. No one decides what is right and what is wrong. especially not for themselves, or society.

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.

Can you back any of this up?

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?

Can you point out a time I have done this?

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 Bible is actually very clear not to apply any rules to Christians in regard to salvation. But it is also clear that there are things that are wrong. Even some that are so wrong they should be illegal and punishable by law. And still some that should be punished with execution. Whether one is under a covenant or not. If I commit murder I should still be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

Do you disagree?

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)

So no prohibition against rape then? Or kidnapping? What about theft?

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.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
-Romans 13:1-5

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.

If you are correct then provide Scripture where Jesus says we should be at peace; according to your definition; with murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves, kidnappers, homosexuals, or adulterers.

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

Kidnapping is a capital crime in the US. Do you disagree with this law?

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.

Why is murder wrong?

 

[Granite]

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?

"Self-loathing" and "overcompensation" come to mind.

 

[WizardofOz]

We've been over this

We've been over this

And right and wrong are right and wrong. They are absolutes, not relative. No one decides what is right and what is wrong. especially not for themselves, or society.

Is lying absolutely wrong?

 

[Nydhogg]

Why is murder wrong?

Easy one. It infringes on other person's right to life. That's why it's wrong, not because god says so.


As for applying Mosaic or Biblical law to people not subject to any covenant, the Bible does not in any way mandate doing so.
Romans refers to CHRISTIANS. Paul's epistles are to the CHURCH, not to the world at large.

If you stay silent when the Bible stays silent you can't subject non-believers to Biblical penalties "Because God says so". God says no such thing. God never says to execute gentile criminals EXCEPT IF THEY BREAK CERTAIN LAWS IN THE HOLY LAND, or if they MURDER, RAPE, OR KIDNAP an Israelite.

(Assuming the gentile's own tribal laws will act if a Gentile is wronged.)

 

[Lighthouse]

Is lying absolutely wrong?

Nope.

 

[Lighthouse]

Easy one. It infringes on other person's right to life. That's why it's wrong, not because god says so.

Exactly!

And it is for this reason that God says it is wrong. So it makes sense to have that law in today's United States.

As for applying Mosaic or Biblical law to people not subject to any covenant, the Bible does not in any way mandate doing so.
Romans refers to CHRISTIANS. Paul's epistles are to the CHURCH, not to the world at large.

So those not in church should just ignore the governing authorities? thumb their noses at them? Break the law with impunity?

If you stay silent when the Bible stays silent you can't subject non-believers to Biblical penalties "Because God says so". God says no such thing. God never says to execute gentile criminals EXCEPT IF THEY BREAK CERTAIN LAWS IN THE HOLY LAND, or if they MURDER, RAPE, OR KIDNAP an Israelite.

At what point did I ever say we should enact these laws because God says so?

Are you arguing we shouldn't execute murderers?

 

[Nydhogg]

Exactly!

And it is for this reason that God says it is wrong. So it makes sense to have that law in today's United States.


So those not in church should just ignore the governing authorities? thumb their noses at them? Break the law with impunity?


At what point did I ever say we should enact these laws because God says so?

Are you arguing we shouldn't execute murderers?

*blasphemy censored*, you're dense!

It makes sense to execute murderers because they OBJECTIVELY violate other person's rights, the slain, its kin and comrades being entitled to retribution!

The Church is enjoined by Paul to obey the civil government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

You argue that homosexuality is harmful because it's sinful and it's defined by god as an abomination. You argue for a capital crime because god considers it as such, hypocrite!

I am arguing we should criminalize people violating the rights of third parties who do not consent, criminalize reckless endangerment of non-consenting parties's life and limb, and NOTHING ELSE!

 

[Lighthouse]

*blasphemy censored*, you're dense!

It makes sense to execute murderers because they OBJECTIVELY violate other person's rights, the slain, its kin and comrades being entitled to retribution!

And you call me dense.:doh:

My statements were intended to convey this exact message. That the reason I believe in the death penalty for murder is because murderers violate the right to life of another person, etc. Also that this is the exact reason God believes in the death penalty for murder.

How did you not understand that?

The Church is enjoined by Paul to obey the civil government, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Did I say it was the other way around, you twit?

Hint: No!

You argue that homosexuality is harmful because it's sinful and it's defined by god as an abomination. You argue for a capital crime because god considers it as such, hypocrite!

FALSE!

I am arguing we should criminalize people violating the rights of third parties who do not consent, criminalize reckless endangerment of non-consenting parties's life and limb, and NOTHING ELSE!

And I'm arguing that you are wrong. On more than one level.

 

[Nydhogg]

Your God's reasons to do stuff do not concern me and are in no way relevant to public policy. I don't believe in your God to begin with.

What is your reason to consider homosexuality a capital crime? That it's "immoral?". Whose rights is society protecting when it outlaws consensual activity?

How is punishing someone for consensual activity upholding his rights? That alone proves your analogy between sodomy and murder worthless. Try again.

 

[MaryContrary]

Mary, the problem is, you're willing to impose criminal penalties to make people not do things you think are bad to society...

Yup.

...simply because they're sinful.

Nope.

Look at Iran. Essentially what you're proposing is life like that. Remove the hijab, and Iran is basically what you're proposing. Is that your idea of good government?

We're talking about criminal law, not government overall. Can't say I'm familiar enough with Iran's criminal justice system to say here. As to their government, from what I've seen on the news and such...yeah, not that great.

 

[Lighthouse]

Your God's reasons to do stuff do not concern me and are in no way relevant to public policy. I don't believe in your God to begin with.

Not the point.

The reason He is against murder is the same reason you are. It is the same reason our public policy is as it is in regard to murder.

That is the point.

What is your reason to consider homosexuality a capital crime? That it's "immoral?".

No.

Whose rights is society protecting when it outlaws consensual activity?

Not all consensual activity is harmless. And there are, many times, even victims who are not involved and did not consent. Many of them do not even realize they are being victimized.

How is punishing someone for consensual activity upholding his rights? That alone proves your analogy between sodomy and murder worthless. Try again.

Criminals forfeit their rights so this is not a valid argument. I also don't see where I stated that it was upholding the rights of the criminal. And what analogy? I didn't make an analogy between homosexuality and murder.