Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Granite]

Funny, though, I'd always heard that it was supposed to be the "Children" that were to be seen and not heard. (Groaner, I know. But I couldn't resist!)

:rotfl:

 

[Army of One]

It's useful: you're agreeing with backwords barbarians who treat women as chattel and who mutilate thieves. Charming.

Oh, I get it now. Since they improperly punish thieves by cutting off their hand, every single tenet of their criminal justice system must be wrong. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

Edited:I do find it interesting that you would refer to a logical fallacy as "useful".:think:

 

[Granite]

Oh, I get it now. Since they improperly punish thieves by cutting off their hand, every single tenet of their criminal justice system must be wrong. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

Edited:I do find it interesting that you would refer to a logical fallacy as "useful".:think:

A willingness to subjugate women, torture dissidents, mutilate petty criminals, and stone capital offenders makes me wonder what if anything in their justice system is useful at all.

 

[Lighthouse]

Stricktly speaking, shiloh is correct. If God had thought that adultry and fornication were entirely the same then He would not have given different punishments for the two crimes.

I definitely agree. I was merely attempting to make a point about what Jesus said. Of course, according to Justin [ex-Wiccan], the word for adultery in the ten commandments is very sepcific. And I believe that fornication is adultery, but not the same adultery that calls for the death penalty. That's all I was saying.

I mean, Greek had three words for love, but we have one, and we use it for all three, and maybe even more meanings...

 

[Lighthouse]

And, I never said that lust should be a crime.

 

[Lighthouse]

Actually. It works quite well thanks.

It's called learning what is and is not acceptable behavior. You behave a certain way and you get punished for it. Isn't that exactly what you are trying to accomplished by asking for the death penalty for homosexual behavior? Have sex with a man, you get a time out. Except this time is permanent.

Our law and jail system are based on this basic theory of human behavior. Else their would be no point in ever putting any criminal in jail (timeout) only to let them out again. We hope that they have learned not to do it again. But hey if you don't agree with jail maybe we should ust start killing all people.

I believe punishment shoud be swift, and painful. It needs to be a deterrent. And time outs are not deterrents. Jail isn't either. It pretty much just makes criminals more criminal.

There is absolutely no point in putting people in jail just to let them out again. Most people keep going back to jail. Do you know why? It's because they haven't learned their lesson!

Did you know that in Singapore, where they cane criminals the crime rate is significantly lower than it is in the US?

 

[Lighthouse]

:yawn:

Pssst... you're not a homosexual.

 

[Zimfan]

It's useful: you're agreeing with backwords barbarians who treat women as chattel and who mutilate thieves. Charming.

:shocked: The Japanese are backwards barbarians who treat women as chattel and who mutilate thieves? I didn't know that!

 

[Zimfan]

:think: So, since these countries don't have the death penalty should I assume that all countries that have abolished it have governments that just prefer to kill people without the hassle of a trial?
Honduras, East Timor, Ecuador, Serbia and Montenegro,Cambodia, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Angola, Croatia, Nepal

 

[Granite]

:shocked: The Japanese are backwards barbarians who treat women as chattel and who mutilate thieves? I didn't know that!

I am not aware of current Japanese law that requires mutilation, public stonings, or decapitations.

Your Islamic opponents, on the other hand, agree with you in terms of barbaric, savage, and inhumane law, so keep on buddying up.

 

[On Fire]

A willingness to subjugate women, torture dissidents, mutilate petty criminals, and stone capital offenders makes me wonder what if anything in their justice system is useful at all.

I assume they would point out their low crime rate.

 

[Granite]

I assume they would point out their low crime rate.

That's kind of like Saddam or the Chinese pointing out their tyrants get 99.999% of the vote in their "elections."

 

[On Fire]

That's kind of like Saddam or the Chinese pointing out their tyrants get 99.999% of the vote in their "elections."

Not exactly....it's more like saying "we don't have much crime around here since everyone has been executed".

 

[Granite]

Not exactly....it's more like saying "we don't have much crime around here since everyone has been executed".

...and we have democracy here, obviously, because everybody votes.

Doesn't make either system admirable.

 

[On Fire]

All my jokes are falling flat this morning.

 

[Granite]

All my jokes are falling flat this morning.

:chuckle:

 

[Sealeaf]

I know no one wants to know this, but if what you want to do is to deter crime, you need to have certain but not necessarily severe punishment.

Suppose you wish to prevent rape. You could make rape a capital offense. The result is going to be less rapists being punished because the severity of the punishment will make the judge very careful to apply it only if he is sure of guilt. So a guy who is inclined toward rape has a good chance of getting away with it. He may be charged but is unlikely to be convicted. If you take the opposit tact, and say make the penalty for rape a fine, say a thousand dollars, levied on every male who is in the town and could have possibly comitted the rape and on the owners of the environment in which the rape happened. Now there is an excellent chance that the quilty party will be punished. So will a lot of technically innocent people who are part of the guilty one's community. What are the chances that some of them know who actually did it? What are the chances that they will not be pleased to have paid for his crime? Think they might discuss the matter with him? Consider that these are the "friends" he would have bragged to, the ones who's opinion of him as a "bad dude" is important to him.

After you are fined a few times for being part of the community that has crimes committed there, do you think you might be moved, to go out of your way, to prevent more crimes? Maybe you would form a property owners society to hire guards, to keep the streets safe in your neighborhood, if it was costing you a couple thousand a month because people were being assaulted on your street.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know no one wants to know this, but if what you want to do is to deter crime, you need to have certain but not necessarily severe punishment.

Suppose you wish to prevent rape. You could make rape a capital offense. The result is going to be less rapists being punished because the severity of the punishment will make the judge very careful to apply it only if he is sure of guilt. So a guy who is inclined toward rape has a good chance of getting away with it. He may be charged but is unlikely to be convicted. If you take the opposit tact, and say make the penalty for rape a fine, say a thousand dollars, levied on every male who is in the town and could have possibly comitted the rape and on the owners of the environment in which the rape happened. Now there is an excellent chance that the quilty party will be punished. So will a lot of technically innocent people who are part of the guilty one's community. What are the chances that some of them know who actually did it? What are the chances that they will not be pleased to have paid for his crime? Think they might discuss the matter with him? Consider that these are the "friends" he would have bragged to, the ones who's opinion of him as a "bad dude" is important to him.

After you are fined a few times for being part of the community that has crimes committed there, do you think you might be moved, to go out of your way, to prevent more crimes? Maybe you would form a property owners society to hire guards, to keep the streets safe in your neighborhood, if it was costing you a couple thousand a month because people were being assaulted on your street.

You are a qualified moron.

Spanking deters children from further acting up, and it punishes no one else for someone else's behavior. The government should do the same thing in its punishments. Punish the guilty party, and no one else. Because if people are punished for something they didn't do they're going to hate those who have punished them.

 

[Army of One]

I know no one wants to know this, but if what you want to do is to deter crime, you need to have certain but not necessarily severe punishment.

Suppose you wish to prevent rape. You could make rape a capital offense. The result is going to be less rapists being punished because the severity of the punishment will make the judge very careful to apply it only if he is sure of guilt. So a guy who is inclined toward rape has a good chance of getting away with it. He may be charged but is unlikely to be convicted. If you take the opposit tact, and say make the penalty for rape a fine, say a thousand dollars, levied on every male who is in the town and could have possibly comitted the rape and on the owners of the environment in which the rape happened. Now there is an excellent chance that the quilty party will be punished. So will a lot of technically innocent people who are part of the guilty one's community. What are the chances that some of them know who actually did it? What are the chances that they will not be pleased to have paid for his crime? Think they might discuss the matter with him? Consider that these are the "friends" he would have bragged to, the ones who's opinion of him as a "bad dude" is important to him.

After you are fined a few times for being part of the community that has crimes committed there, do you think you might be moved, to go out of your way, to prevent more crimes? Maybe you would form a property owners society to hire guards, to keep the streets safe in your neighborhood, if it was costing you a couple thousand a month because people were being assaulted on your street.

So the strategy is to punish everyone (whether guilty or innocent), until the innocent get fed up and hire their own private police force (or become vigilantes themselves)? That's certainly a unique approach to crime prevention. Wrong, but unique.

 

[jennifferdoug]

What the Heck?!?

What the Heck?!?

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

If so, why so? If not, why not?

Why even ask this question? What harm are they causing you or anyone else? If they choose to live their life this way, it's their choice. It's not like they are forcing anyone else to be gay. When did freedom become a crime? Next we'll be saying that only blondes can be with blondes, red heads with red heads and so on. I for one don't want anyone telling me who I can and cannot be with with. I am not gay, and that's good for me but it's obviously not good for some other people who are gay. If I don't like it, I can turn my head the other way, change the channel or walk away. It's called choice. You can't go around killing people because they choose to live in a different way than you. Now, if they hurt someone, punish them, in the meantime, leave them alone.