Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Nydhogg]

Is society sovereign over the individual? Or is the individual sovereign over himself, society protecting man from other men and not man from himself? I take the later view. It's called liberty.

You should try it sometimes, it's addictive. Minding your own business and not worrying about other people's lives. Quite fittingly, embracing liberty is liberating.

You say that it's government's place to take people to the majority's version of righteousness, whether they want it or not, by force if it needs be. I say it's tyranny.


BTW, Mary, I'm still waiting your answer on the other thread.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is society sovereign over the individual? Or is the individual sovereign over himself, society protecting man from other men and not man from himself? I take the later view. It's called liberty.

Now offer some support as to why it's the correct view, and how it is truly liberty.

 

[Skavau]

Lighthouse seems to be going through retrospective amnesia. He said all these things to me on another thread and basically conceded them. Eventually was reduced to referencing how homosexuality might result and be a part of the destruction of a civilisation (where it is permitted).

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse seems to be going through retrospective amnesia. He said all these things to me on another thread and basically conceded them. Eventually was reduced to referencing how homosexuality might result and be a part of the destruction of a civilisation (where it is permitted).

You're suffering from delusion for I conceded nothing.

 

[MaryContrary]

Well then, yes it does suprise me.

Um...which? One, the other or both?

The point I was making is that it shouldn't surprise you to find a homosexual agreeing with the death penalty for the homosexual act. You should examine the reasons why it does surprise you.

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?

Good point, should have included defending others as well. So, no then.

Murder is simply unlawful killing, so any killing that isn't unlawful is not murder. Can we agree on that?

But the point, before we lose it completely, was that no one is suggesting outlawing the mere capability of committing any particular crime. Nor even the willingness or desire to. Specifically, no one is advocating outlawing homosexuality, rather the homosexual act. If we outlawed simply being able and/or willing to commit a crime, then everyone would be guilty of it.

You'll notice it's typically those on the other side of the argument that bend over backwards to give that impression, not us. I was just advising you not let them confuse you concerning our position on the issue.

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.

So you recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others? Even punishing that with the death penalty in certain cases?

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 think you missed the parts I underlined and what the showed. Try this:

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))

So, for example, you could be tried and sentenced to death for advising someone else in killing a juror, whether they actually kill them or not. That's pretty far removed from the crime and could even be enforced when the crime isn't committed at all.

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

Good luck with yer larnin'. :thumb:

 

[Nydhogg]

I am doing no such thing, Mary. I'm only claiming that your wish to criminalize sodomy is tyrannical, fascistic, puritan and Taliban-ish.

 

[WizardofOz]

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?

Nope.

Then lying being right or wrong is relative.

See how easy it is to debunk you?

 

[MaryContrary]

I am doing no such thing, Mary.

Huh? "No such thing" what? :liberals:

I'm only claiming that your wish to criminalize sodomy is tyrannical, fascistic, puritan and Taliban-ish.

I get the "tyrannical" thing, because you believe there should be no laws at all that don't directly protect individual rights. I suspect you find a lot of our current laws tyrannical by that standard.

Fascistic...well, I'm not sure you understand what "fascism" means. But considering your perspective on "tyrannical", then I guess that fits.

Puritan? "One who practices or preaches a more rigorous or professedly purer moral code than that which prevails". :think: Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?

Talibanish...I'm getting the impression at this point you're letting go of that "rationale discussion" thing you seemed to value earlier and have decided to just toss as many negative connotations you can my way. Is that what we're devolving to now? If so, carry on. Not interested in having the sort of "discussion" you and LH are having.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

Um...which? One, the other or both?

The point I was making is that it shouldn't surprise you to find a homosexual agreeing with the death penalty for the homosexual act. You should examine the reasons why it does surprise you.

Let's clear this up. Your first question was: "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?". After rereading this question I noticed some things. Capable simply means having the ability to do something and most individuals are capable of a lot of things. Now murder is the intentional termination of another individuals life while prostitution and pornography are not. Murder cannot be used in the same context as pornography and prostitution because it is not the same; it is an all together different capability and an all together different act. So that question either has to be thrown out or seriously re-worded.

Your second question was: "If not, then a homosexual supporting the criminalization of the homosexual act shouldn't surprise you, in and of itself." This is entirely contradictory. Being homosexual is a propensity to direct sexual desire and attraction towards a member of the same sex. The usage of the term "homosexual act is also vague. Technically anything a homosexual does towards the same sex could be considered an act i.e. a handshake, sex, a hug, talking on the phone, or in your case getting married. If the term is used like this then, by your logic, you should be punished in accordance with how you believe a homosexual act should be punished. Being a homosexual and homosexual acts are essentially one in the same. So my answer to this question is yes, I am very, very confused at why a homosexual, whom is married to the same sex, would want the death penalty of homosexual acts when it is inherently attached to homosexuality. I believe that anyone who you asked this to would also be confused. So it may be you who needs to reevaluate your position on this because if it's contradictory then it's not coherent.

Good point, should have included defending others as well. So, no then.

Murder is simply unlawful killing, so any killing that isn't unlawful is not murder. Can we agree on that?

Yes we can.

But the point, before we lose it completely, was that no one is suggesting outlawing the mere capability of committing any particular crime. Nor even the willingness or desire to. Specifically, no one is advocating outlawing homosexuality, rather the homosexual act. If we outlawed simply being able and/or willing to commit a crime, then everyone would be guilty of it.

As I stated above we cannot seperate homosexuality from homosexual acts. But, IF we did then there is another reason to why we couldn't criminalize homosexual acts by death. If you are homosexual then you are attracted sexually and non-sexually to the same sex. Each individual in America have the same unalienable rights, one of them being the pursuit of happiness. If you were to allow only homosexuality and not the physical aspects of it, then you would essentially be denying the right of the pursuit of happiness by denying their right to act.

So you recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others? Even punishing that with the death penalty in certain cases?

We criminalize all sorts of things, and a lot of them are antiquated laws that need to be refurbished or abolished completely, but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So, for example, you could be tried and sentenced to death for advising someone else in killing a juror, whether they actually kill them or not. That's pretty far removed from the crime and could even be enforced when the crime isn't committed at all.

You're missing some information in your snippet. Here's the entirety of 18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2):

(b) A defendant who has been found guilty of—

(2) an offense referred to in section 408(c)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848 (c)(1)), committed as part of a continuing criminal enterprise offense under that section, where the defendant is a principal administrator, organizer, or leader of such an enterprise, and the defendant, in order to obstruct the investigation or prosecution of the enterprise or an offense involved in the enterprise, attempts to kill or knowingly directs, advises, authorizes, or assists another to attempt to kill any public officer, juror, witness, or members of the family or household of such a person,

shall be sentenced to death if, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 3592 in the course of a hearing held pursuant to section 3593, it is determined that imposition of a sentence of death is justified, except that no person may be sentenced to death who was less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense.

No where in the entirety of 18 U.S.C. 3591 does it say "even be enforced when the crime isn't committed at all. You may want to go back and read all of those sections and their related counterparts.

Good luck with yer larnin'.

Thanks! I made the mistake of taking World History 2 and Art History 1. Two histories in one semester to not make for fun larnin'.

 

[MaryContrary]

Let's clear this up. Your first question was: "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?". After rereading this question I noticed some things. Capable simply means having the ability to do something and most individuals are capable of a lot of things. Now murder is the intentional termination of another individuals life while prostitution and pornography are not. Murder cannot be used in the same context as pornography and prostitution because it is not the same; it is an all together different capability and an all together different act. So that question either has to be thrown out or seriously re-worded.

Your second question was: "If not, then a homosexual supporting the criminalization of the homosexual act shouldn't surprise you, in and of itself." This is entirely contradictory. Being homosexual is a propensity to direct sexual desire and attraction towards a member of the same sex. The usage of the term "homosexual act is also vague. Technically anything a homosexual does towards the same sex could be considered an act i.e. a handshake, sex, a hug, talking on the phone, or in your case getting married. If the term is used like this then, by your logic, you should be punished in accordance with how you believe a homosexual act should be punished. Being a homosexual and homosexual acts are essentially one in the same. So my answer to this question is yes, I am very, very confused at why a homosexual, whom is married to the same sex, would want the death penalty of homosexual acts when it is inherently attached to homosexuality. I believe that anyone who you asked this to would also be confused. So it may be you who needs to reevaluate your position on this because if it's contradictory then it's not coherent.

Wow. Never mind. Seriously. :nono:

Not that difficult a point, you know. But how about you illustrate why, since you apparently don't want to hear me attempt it. Why do you think we don't criminalize simply wanting to commit a crime?

As I stated above we cannot seperate homosexuality from homosexual acts.

Yeah, I caught that. And you're wrong.

You do realize we're talking about sex, don't you? How specific do you need me to be here?

But, IF we did then there is another reason to why we couldn't criminalize homosexual acts by death. If you are homosexual then you are attracted sexually and non-sexually to the same sex. Each individual in America have the same unalienable rights, one of them being the pursuit of happiness. If you were to allow only homosexuality and not the physical aspects of it, then you would essentially be denying the right of the pursuit of happiness by denying their right to act.

I'm sorry but that's just a ridiculous argument. Everything we outlaw is something someone somewhere wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness. And yet we outlaw it anyway.

We criminalize all sorts of things, and a lot of them are antiquated laws that need to be refurbished or abolished completely, but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Doesn't answer my question at all. I'll try again:

So you recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others? Even punishing that with the death penalty in certain cases?

You're missing some information in your snippet. Here's the entirety of 18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2):

(b) A defendant who has been found guilty of—

(2) an offense referred to in section 408(c)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848 (c)(1)), committed as part of a continuing criminal enterprise offense under that section, where the defendant is a principal administrator, organizer, or leader of such an enterprise, and the defendant, in order to obstruct the investigation or prosecution of the enterprise or an offense involved in the enterprise, attempts to kill or knowingly directs, advises, authorizes, or assists another to attempt to kill any public officer, juror, witness, or members of the family or household of such a person,

shall be sentenced to death if, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 3592 in the course of a hearing held pursuant to section 3593, it is determined that imposition of a sentence of death is justified, except that no person may be sentenced to death who was less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense.

No where in the entirety of 18 U.S.C. 3591 does it say "even be enforced when the crime isn't committed at all. You may want to go back and read all of those sections and their related counterparts.

So if a "principal administrator, organizer, or leader" of a "continuing criminal enterprise" qualifying under that section, who's over the age of 18 "knowingly directs, [or] advises" the killing of "any public officer, juror, witness, or members of the family or household of such a person", that person can't be tried, convicted and executed "if, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 3592 in the course of a hearing held pursuant to section 3593, it is determined that imposition of a sentence of death is justified"?

I think you need to read it again. Nowhere is it required that the crime actually be committed.

Thanks! I made the mistake of taking World History 2 and Art History 1. Two histories in one semester to not make for fun larnin'.

You has my sympathies. But buck up! That stuff may come in handy one day.

 

[Lighthouse]

Then lying being right or wrong is relative.

See how easy it is to debunk you?

Wrong.

Just because it is not always wrong to do a certain thing does not mean that in an instance it is wrong for one person it is right for another in the same scenario, or vice versa.

It was not wrong for Rahab to lie about hiding the two Israelites from the soldiers of Jericho.

It was not wrong for those who hid Jews from the NAZIs to lie about hiding them.

It is wrong, always, to falsely accuse someone of a crime.

 

[WizardofOz]

Wrong.

Absolutely or relatively?

Another example, thanks!

right and wrong are right and wrong. They are absolutes, not relative.

Is mutually exclusive to this....

it is not always wrong to do a certain thing

It's that simple.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

Wow. Never mind. Seriously.

Not that difficult a point, you know. But how about you illustrate why, since you apparently don't want to hear me attempt it. Why do you think we don't criminalize simply wanting to commit a crime?

Never mind, seriously? You are attempting to equate the capability of murder to the capability of prostitution and pornography which cannot be done because one of them, murder, is the sole purpose of terminating someones life. So I'm asserting that your question is wrong and needs to be re-worded in order to support the claims your present because as of now they are an unsound argument. I'm all about listening to why, but if that simple premise is flawed from the beginning then it needs to be corrected before continuing. To answer your question though I need another answer. Do you equate want with intent?

Yeah, I caught that. And you're wrong.

You do realize we're talking about sex, don't you? How specific do you need me to be here?

I know we're talking about sex, but could you also explain why I'm wrong and you're right, since you didn't include that with you're claim that I'm wrong.

I'm sorry but that's just a ridiculous argument. Everything we outlaw is something someone somewhere wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness. And yet we outlaw it anyway.

"Everything" is such a strong word. All I have to do to invalidate your assertion is find one thing that is not true to it. The first thing that comes to mind is the outlaw of unlawful murder, which is not outlawing something that someone wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness but rather outlawing the denying of the pursuit of life to the murdered individual. So could you explain how my argument is ridiculous?

So you recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others? Even punishing that with the death penalty in certain cases?

I forgot to add that to my answer. Yes I do recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others. I do not recognize that we punish with the death penalty in these cases. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that we in fact do?

I think you need to read it again. Nowhere is it required that the crime actually be committed.

Mary, when an individual "knowingly directs" or "advises" the killing of... they are directly connected to that murder. If the murder doesn't happen they can still be tried because they, with intent, attempted to have a person killed. They are still committing a crime to the effect of stealing the life from another individual. By your logic anyone who angerily says "I want that man dead" can be tried and sentenced to death, but we know this doesn't happen and that is exactly why your point is not true.

 

[Lighthouse]

Absolutely or relatively?

You were absolutely wrong.

Another example, thanks!

:doh:Idiot.

Is mutually exclusive to this....

How so?

It's that simple.

You're simple.

When something is wrong it is absolutely wrong, i.e. wrong for everyone. When something is right it is absolutely right, i.e. right for everyone.

Always.

 

[Mr.Razorblades]

Lighthouse,

If it's explicitly wrong to terminate a sufferinging individual with their consent and want to terminate their life, then is it right to allow them to continue to suffer in extreme pain?

 

[Granite]

Wrong.

Just because it is not always wrong to do a certain thing does not mean that in an instance it is wrong for one person it is right for another in the same scenario, or vice versa.

It was not wrong for Rahab to lie about hiding the two Israelites from the soldiers of Jericho.

It was not wrong for those who hid Jews from the NAZIs to lie about hiding them.

It is wrong, always, to falsely accuse someone of a crime.

This is a long-winded way of saying that it's not absolutely wrong to lie.

Deal with it and move on.

 

[MaryContrary]

Never mind, seriously? You are attempting to equate the capability of murder to the capability of prostitution and pornography which cannot be done because one of them, murder, is the sole purpose of terminating someones life. So I'm asserting that your question is wrong and needs to be re-worded in order to support the claims your present because as of now they are an unsound argument. I'm all about listening to why, but if that simple premise is flawed from the beginning then it needs to be corrected before continuing. To answer your question though I need another answer. Do you equate want with intent?

I said never mind because your thinking on this point is so convoluted there's little possibility I can wade through all that, get you turned in the right direction and somehow manage not to completely lose the point I was trying to make in the first place in the process of it all. In short, not worth the effort. So never mind.

Not to mention it's not necessary anyway. You've already accepted the premise elsewhere in our discussion.

I know we're talking about sex, but could you also explain why I'm wrong and you're right, since you didn't include that with you're claim that I'm wrong.

We can differentiate between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex. I'd provide examples of that principle but you'd just deny they're relevant since anything that isn't homosexuality isn't homosexuality, and so isn't comparable to it.

"Everything" is such a strong word. All I have to do to invalidate your assertion is find one thing that is not true to it. The first thing that comes to mind is the outlaw of unlawful murder, which is not outlawing something that someone wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness but rather outlawing the denying of the pursuit of life to the murdered individual. So could you explain how my argument is ridiculous?

Okay.

First, all murder is unlawful. That's what murder is. Unlawful killing. So "unlawful murder" is redundant.

Second, you said "murder, which is not outlawing something that someone wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness but rather outlawing the denying of the pursuit of life to the murdered individual."
Do you really think the vast majority of murderers do so for some other reason than, you know, wanting to?

This is the argument you presented against outlawing homosexual sex. Because those who do so do it in pursuit of their individual happiness and therefore, it shouldn't be outlawed. So by that reasoning murder should not be outlawed because people do that in the pursuit of their individual happiness.

Not that complicated, dude. And I'll point out this is the very premise you've argued so stubbornly isn't valid when I presented it earlier. That the intent behind murder and homosexual sex are comparable for the purposes of arguing whether they should be outlawed.

I forgot to add that to my answer. Yes I do recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others. I do not recognize that we punish with the death penalty in these cases. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that we in fact do?

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))

You already recognized espionage and treason, so I don't know why you're asking for this again.

Mary, when an individual "knowingly directs" or "advises" the killing of... they are directly connected to that murder. If the murder doesn't happen they can still be tried because they, with intent, attempted to have a person killed. They are still committing a crime to the effect of stealing the life from another individual.

So you agree they can be given the death penalty even if the murder never actually took place. So why are you still arguing this?

So, how does this relate to outlawing the homosexual act but not homosexuality itself? Simple.

If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 goes out himself and commits murder, he can be charged with murder and sentenced to death.

If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 gives the order or even advises another to commit murder as described, he can be charged and sentenced to death.

If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 says to those around him, "You know, I really wanna kill that guy. But I won't."...then he can't be charged with anything at all. Nor would anyone even think to try to.

So if the homosexual act (that's sex, btw) is outlawed someone (homo or no) can go out and have homosexual sex, be tried and executed.

If the homosexual act is outlawed and someone expresses the intent to go out and have homosexual sex, or advises someone to, or conspires to...then we still can't charge them with anything unless we've outlawed the intent, the advise or the conspiracy to commit. Then we could.

If the homosexual act is outlawed and someone who otherwise wants to have homosexual sex but doesn't...or even expresses the desire to but not the intent...no one would even think of charging them with anything. And there'd be nothing to charge them with if they did.

Are you getting this yet?

By your logic anyone who angerily says "I want that man dead" can be tried and sentenced to death, but we know this doesn't happen and that is exactly why your point is not true.

That hasn't anything whatsoever to do with the example you and I have been arguing this whole time (18 U.S.C. 3591). Nowhere have I suggested anything like this anywhere else either. And if you're seriously presenting this then it only stands as evidence that you're not following the conversation. :nono:

 

[Nydhogg]

Yes, I do consider many of our current laws tyrannical. I have said as much. I have also explained why.

There's one system in the world that executes homosexuals and adulterers. It's shariah law. On Iran and Afghanistan they're quite big on it.

I do not think my comparison of your proposed laws and the Taliban's or Iran's is far-fetched at all, given that you're pushing for virtually the same thing, the State dictating sexual morals to the people under pain of death.

The Puritans? Well, CS Lewis, a brilliant Christian apologist, said something like this about those guys and their freaking public decency:


Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

Worth repeating.



Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse,

If it's explicitly wrong to terminate a sufferinging individual with their consent and want to terminate their life, then is it right to allow them to continue to suffer in extreme pain?

No.

 

[MaryContrary]

Yes, I do consider many of our current laws tyrannical. I have said as much. I have also explained why.

So you're using "tyrannical" much more broadly than is normally accepted as accurate.

There's one system in the world that executes homosexuals and adulterers. It's shariah law. On Iran and Afghanistan they're quite big on it.

I do not think my comparison of your proposed laws and the Taliban's or Iran's is far-fetched at all, given that you're pushing for virtually the same thing, the State dictating sexual morals to the people under pain of death.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

The Puritans? Well, CS Lewis, a brilliant Christian apologist, said something like this about those guys and their freaking public decency:


Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

Worth repeating.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

So you meant "Puritan" in the other sense of the word, not merely the one I indicated. And since I'm not basing my advocacy of this law based on what is moral but rather on the fact that homosexuality is so destructive that it requires it, your describing it in this way is dishonest. Because I've been pretty clear on that.