Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[Christian Liberty]

How, then, would you discourage the participation in such a manner that it wouldn't happen?

Before I answer, do you understand the difference between what I am saying and what aCW is accusing me of saying? I will answer this but I want to make sure we're clear that I'm not condoning streaking or perversion first....



Preemptively assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand the difference )) I will now answer the question:

The short answer is simply, a central tenant of libertarian legal theory is that it is unjust to use aggressive force against a person or his property. "Aggressive" means not either in defense against a preemptive attack or in order to punish such an attack. Note that we are talking about the law here. There are circumstances in which certain types of preemptive force are unavoidable (For instance, a blind man is unknowingly about to walk into the road and get run over by a car.) Although libertarian legal theory is closely related to ethics, it is not an ethical system as such. Note also that we are talking about adults here. We are not talking about children or their relations with their parents.

With that being said, an adult who exposes himself on PUBLIC (emphasis added) property is violating nobody's rights. Its distasteful, its immoral, it should be a social faux pas, and so forth, but it doesn't violate your rights. The right not to see something repulsive is a positive right, rather than a negative right. As such, its a legal fiction that doesn't really exist.

On private property, on the other hand, nudity could of course be prohibited. And by "private property" I don't just mean your house. I mean Wal Mart, a school (public schools should not exist, so I'm not even going to get into the lesser of two evils in this type of situation), a restaurant, a privately owned park, whatever. Ideally all property would be privately owned so this wouldn't even be an issue. Most places probably wouldn't allow nudity, some might, and I just don't see the issue. The only reason its an issue is because the government illegitimately claims large amounts of property for itself. And since this property is illegitimately claimed by the government, the entire country effectively owns it at present. And since the government is not a rightful property owner, it does not act legitimately to stop any non-aggressive actions on its so called property. Much like you'd have a right to ask someone who insults your mom in your home to leave, but President Obama doesn't have a right to ask someone who insults his mom on "public" property to leave.

As for the question of "how do you prevent it?" Well, it may not be absolutely preventable, but I see this in the same light as numerous other distasteful, though non-violent, actions. Its legal to call every woman you see a whore, but who is going to do that? The social distastefulness of such a thing is plenty to prevent most people from doing it. Were you to advocate a law against it, I would fight it tooth and nail. Not because I think calling all women whores is morally acceptable, but because it is a non-violent action.

Now, of course, you would have every right to ask someone who would do such an action on your property to leave. So would anyone else. But its still a non-violent action that shouldn't be illegal as such. By contrast, theft and murder rightly aren't allowed anywhere. These actions are fundamentally violent (even theft that doesn't involve clear assault involves forcefully taking property from its owner) and warrant violence in response. Public nudity is distasteful but does not warrant violent response because it is a non-violent option (and if anyone here thinks that locking someone in a cage ISN'T violent, you need to set that superstition aside now, because it clearly is.)

 

[Rusha]

Before I answer, do you understand the difference between what I am saying and what aCW is accusing me of saying? I will answer this but I want to make sure we're clear that I'm not condoning streaking or perversion first....

Preemptively assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand the difference )) I will now answer the question:

The short answer is simply, a central tenant of libertarian legal theory is that it is unjust to use aggressive force against a person or his property. "Aggressive" means not either in defense against a preemptive attack or in order to punish such an attack. Note that we are talking about the law here. There are circumstances in which certain types of preemptive force are unavoidable (For instance, a blind man is unknowingly about to walk into the road and get run over by a car.) Although libertarian legal theory is closely related to ethics, it is not an ethical system as such. Note also that we are talking about adults here. We are not talking about children or their relations with their parents.

With that being said, an adult who exposes himself on PUBLIC (emphasis added) property is violating nobody's rights. Its distasteful, its immoral, it should be a social faux pas, and so forth, but it doesn't violate your rights. The right not to see something repulsive is a positive right, rather than a negative right. As such, its a legal fiction that doesn't really exist.

On private property, on the other hand, nudity could of course be prohibited. And by "private property" I don't just mean your house. I mean Wal Mart, a school (public schools should not exist, so I'm not even going to get into the lesser of two evils in this type of situation), a restaurant, a privately owned park, whatever. Ideally all property would be privately owned so this wouldn't even be an issue. Most places probably wouldn't allow nudity, some might, and I just don't see the issue. The only reason its an issue is because the government illegitimately claims large amounts of property for itself. And since this property is illegitimately claimed by the government, the entire country effectively owns it at present. And since the government is not a rightful property owner, it does not act legitimately to stop any non-aggressive actions on its so called property. Much like you'd have a right to ask someone who insults your mom in your home to leave, but President Obama doesn't have a right to ask someone who insults his mom on "public" property to leave.

As for the question of "how do you prevent it?" Well, it may not be absolutely preventable, but I see this in the same light as numerous other distasteful, though non-violent, actions. Its legal to call every woman you see a whore, but who is going to do that? The social distastefulness of such a thing is plenty to prevent most people from doing it. Were you to advocate a law against it, I would fight it tooth and nail. Not because I think calling all women whores is morally acceptable, but because it is a non-violent action.

Now, of course, you would have every right to ask someone who would do such an action on your property to leave. So would anyone else. But its still a non-violent action that shouldn't be illegal as such. By contrast, theft and murder rightly aren't allowed anywhere. These actions are fundamentally violent (even theft that doesn't involve clear assault involves forcefully taking property from its owner) and warrant violence in response. Public nudity is distasteful but does not warrant violent response because it is a non-violent option (and if anyone here thinks that locking someone in a cage ISN'T violent, you need to set that superstition aside now, because it clearly is.)

Oh, I understand your response, but just do not agree with you. My view is that the comfort of children should take priority over a person's right to make a political statement.

Also, I don't see arresting people as being violent. When someone violates a law, most incidents would be without incident if the person didn't resist arrest.

 

[shagster01]

Because it's ... public. There is no good reason that people cannot rent out a place if they wish to display nudity and use a disclaimer. That is what nudist colonies are for.

No one should have to avert their eyes when they are out in public.

Isn't it the same as the "Redskins" debate though? We allow the offended to rule rather than learning how not to take offense at everything?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, I understand your response, but just do not agree with you. My view is that the comfort of children should take priority over a person's right to make a political statement.

So you're putting the positive right of children's comfort over the negative right to be left alone. Its a shame. I know a lot of people who agree with you. I'm not trying to pigeonhole you into a category, but this is one of my biggest issues with conservatism. They say they're about limited government, but then when it comes to peaceful activities which they dislike, they become some of the biggest government people imaginable. (And no, its not just this one issue. Its a lot of stuff added together.)

Also, I don't see arresting people as being violent. When someone violates a law, most incidents would be without incident if the person didn't resist arrest.

Of course its violent! Think about what is actually happening during an arrest. Stop thinking in legalistic terms and in government propaganda, and start really thinking about it.

Someone is forcibly handcuffing you against your will, and driving you off to a place where they will lock you in a cage and forcibly confine you for a long period of time in a cage. This comes with the threat that if you dare resist this person who is assaulting you, or try to fight back (sometimes even non-cooperation is enough to warrant this response) they will kill you. That is incredibly violent. As I said before, this could be justified if it is in response to a violent action by an individual (although I rarely, if ever, think prison is the correct punishment) but even then, its still violent.

The fact that most people don't realize that it is violent is a big part of the problem. Most people, when asked when violence is acceptable, will come up with answers that are pretty close to what libertarians posit. Sometimes they will have stricter standards for themselves (which is perfectly acceptable for a libertarian, just because you have the right to use violence does not necessarily mean you should) but most people have something in the general ballpark of "only if I'm protecting myself against someone who is using violence against me."

But then, they in practice support violence for all kinds of frivolous reasons, because they've been convinced that some violence isn't violence. At the risk of sounding offensive, its because you've been brainwashed. Not just you, but the vast majority of the world. Waking up really, really sucks because it forces you to come to terms with the reality of how immoral our society really is. The stuff that aCW is presenting here is not the worst part of our society (although it is often pretty bad), the worst part of our society is that it thinks of people who initiate violence as "good guys" and "heroes" while it views people who resist the violence or even those who intellectually oppose it as "disrespectful" if not "domestic terrorists." (Some people will even say that talking about this stuff makes one anti-American or a terrorist, but a lot of people won't.)

Unfortunately, sometimes when people wake up they go off the rails and do something they shouldn't do, and sometimes something they don't even have the right to do.

Even though waking up is painful though, it needs to happen. Because not doing it will lead to even worse atrocities occurring.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Isn't it the same as the "Redskins" debate though? We allow the offended to rule rather than learning how not to take offense at everything?

Its a similar idea, and I say that as someone who is offended by public nudity as well. I don't want it in my neighborhood. One false assumption that a lot of people make is that everyone will want to do something that's clearly socially distasteful just because its legal. This isn't the case.

 

[Lon]

If you don't want to see something, don't look at it. It's not my job to make sure you see only things you want.

No, we have home owners associations for a reason and can legal provide means and incentives. So naturally, we'd expect the same thing regarding public decency (and do). These ones are breaking laws and should have jail time. It doesn't get simpler and must be voted out for any change to occur. Right now, we just need to enforce what the law demands.

And I could care less what old Jews wrote down 5000 years ago.

Then why are you on a Theology website? :dizzy: :doh:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

My view is that the comfort of children should take priority over a person's right to make a political statement.

It took a while Sandy, but I'm glad that you eventually came around. Since the homosexual movement has no interest in the welfare (i.e. "comfort") of children, I can only assume that you're for recriminalizating a behavior and a political movement that exploits innocent youth.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Since the Doper didn't answer my question, perhaps you can tell us why civilized societies have and enforce public decency laws. While you're at it, tell us what doctrine here in western civilization is the basis for such laws.

Well, since I am perhaps culturally Christian and thankfully used to seeing only clothed people in public places then I would not particularly want that to change now. If I'd been raised in a different culture then perhaps, who knows how I'd feel about it?
I think I've already explained my reasoning against public nudity in a previous post, but I suspect that you'd rather like me to "flesh it out" so to speak, which perhaps I'll pass on here.

Remember my analogies where I said that the proud and unrepentant shoplifter has no right to condemn the burglar? Remember my cartoon where I showed a pot telling the kettle that he had no business judging him? Are homosexuals that are prancing around in the nude at gay pride/moral degenerate parades any more guilty than the proud and unrepentant homosexual teacher that indoctrinates innocent children into believing that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior? Are they any more guilty than the homosexual hair dresser who contributes money to homosexual causes and votes for pro homosexual candidates and agendas which include the indoctrination of innocent children?

Of course not. They're all part of a "collective", and as my signature shows: "Children are just collateral damage".

Do you find certain body parts shameful aCW? If so why exactly?

The human body is a magnificent work of art, a masterpiece created by God. It's such a beautiful masterpiece that certain body parts should only be shared with one's spouse (thus the reason civilized societies have and enforce public decency laws).

 

[Rusha]

It took a while Sandy, but I'm glad that you eventually came around. Since the homosexual movement has no interest in the welfare (i.e. "comfort") of children, I can only assume that you're for recriminalizating a behavior and a political movement that exploits innocent youth.

My position has been non changing from the time I joined TOL. I DO play favorites when it comes to protecting children, mentally/physically disabled individuals and the elderly.

While I would willingly give a lethal injection to any child molester/rapist/serial killer, I am not willing to state that all homosexuals are predators. In the same way I am not willing to state all heterosexuals are not predators.

Until someone actually commits a crime, there is no legal liability.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

While I would willingly give a lethal injection to any child molester/rapist/serial killer, I am not willing to state that all homosexuals are predators.

Would you consider someone a predator that indoctrinates a child into believing that homosexuality is a normal and hence an acceptable behavior? Would you consider it predatory for some who proudly and unrepentantly engages in homosexual behavior not to tell these ever so innocent and impressionable youth that promiscuity, disease, drug and alcohol addiction, and hence early death are associated with homosexual behavior?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Since the Doper didn't answer my question, perhaps you can tell us why civilized societies have and enforce public decency laws. While you're at it, tell us what doctrine here in western civilization is the basis for such laws.



Remember my analogies where I said that the proud and unrepentant shoplifter has no right to condemn the burglar? Remember my cartoon where I showed a pot telling the kettle that he had no business judging him? Are homosexuals that are prancing around in the nude at gay pride/moral degenerate parades any more guilty than the proud and unrepentant homosexual teacher that indoctrinates innocent children into believing that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior? Are they any more guilty than the homosexual hair dresser who contributes money to homosexual causes and votes for pro homosexual candidates and agendas which include the indoctrination of innocent children?

Of course not. They're all part of a "collective", and as my signature shows: "Children are just collateral damage".




The human body is a magnificent work of art, a masterpiece created by God. It's such a beautiful masterpiece that certain body parts should only be shared with one's spouse (thus the reason civilized societies have and enforce public decency laws).

Says the guy who has no problem with ACTUAL collateral damage.

Why do conservatives on this website spend so much time talking about what they want government to be doing as opposed to what it shouldn't be doing?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Speaking of predators:

Says the guy who has no problem with ACTUAL collateral damage.

Why do conservatives on this website spend so much time talking about what they want government to be doing as opposed to what it shouldn't be doing?

Come back with verification that you sought psychological help from legitimate trained professionals and then we'll talk Jr.

http://www.narth.org/menus/about.html
http://josephnicolosi.com/

 

[drbrumley]

Says the guy who has no problem with ACTUAL collateral damage.

Why do conservatives on this website spend so much time talking about what they want government to be doing as opposed to what it shouldn't be doing?

Right

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Right

[that..."conservatives on this website spend so much time talking about what they want government to be doing as opposed to what it shouldn't be doing?"]

Wouldn't you agree Doc that government should be enforcing laws on the books against child predators, i.e. making sure that these sick degenerates get the help that they need?

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty
...I don't think exposing one's genitals in the presence of children is just cause to lock them up... It isn't actually a physical threat.

Originally posted by Christian Liberty
OK, assuming that the incest is not rape (which all forms of pedophilia would be) why not? [legalize it].
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3932576&postcount=175

Welcome to the circus Doc. Unfortunately for you, the main attraction in the freak show is the guy whom you bought a TOL membership for.

Oh and Doc: If Jr. has any siblings, you might want to warn them about the incest comment.

 

[shagster01]

Would you consider someone a predator that indoctrinates a child into believing that homosexuality is a normal and hence an acceptable behavior? Would you consider it predatory for some who proudly and unrepentantly engages in homosexual behavior not to tell these ever so innocent and impressionable youth that promiscuity, disease, drug and alcohol addiction, and hence early death are associated with homosexual behavior?

No more than someone who indoctrinates kids with religion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

[that..."conservatives on this website spend so much time talking about what they want government to be doing as opposed to what it shouldn't be doing?"]

Wouldn't you agree Doc that government should be enforcing laws on the books against child predators, i.e. making sure that these sick degenerates get the help that they need?

Nobody is against enforcing laws against child predators. the problem is that you keep saying that word but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Doc and I don't agree all the time but at least Doc knows what words mean. You do not.

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty
...I don't think exposing one's genitals in the presence of children is just cause to lock them up... It isn't actually a physical threat.

Originally posted by Christian Liberty
OK, assuming that the incest is not rape (which all forms of pedophilia would be) why not? [legalize it].
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3932576&postcount=175

Welcome to the circus Doc. Unfortunately for you, the main attraction in the freak show is the guy whom you bought a TOL membership for.

I didn't know for sure it was Doc. Thank you!

Oh and Doc: If Jr. has any siblings, you might want to warn them about the incest comment.

Are you stupid? Come to think of it, this is really the only response. I refuse to even think about the repulsive of what you are suggesting. The point that I was making is that consensual activities between adults should not be criminalized. That's it. There are a lot of morally disgusting things that I don't think should be combated by violence (for what its worth, my siblings are not even adults.)

 

[Lon]

No more than someone who indoctrinates kids with religion.

:doh: What are you, like 17? How is religion and nudity/sexuality even remotely in the same ballpark in your mind? :dizzy:

 

[Christian Liberty]

And not only that, but I don't think I've ever had a conversation about the legalization of incest in real life. It is only a pervert like aCW who would even think to go there in a conversation. Normal people think of different things when they are exposed to the NAP for the first time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

:doh: What are you, like 17? How is religion and nudity/sexuality even remotely in the same ballpark in your mind? :dizzy:

I agree that it isn't the same even with what aCW said, but aCW was talking about parents who teach their children that homosexuality is normal, not people who expose themselves sexually to their children.

 

[Lon]

I agree that it isn't the same even with what aCW said, but aCW was talking about parents who teach their children that homosexuality is normal, not people who expose themselves sexually to their children.

ACW mentioned the more explicit terms and was referring to grown gray hairy old men (and women) exposing themselves in front of children, where you and I and every 'normal' adult wouldn't even think of going naked. The issue is their parents bringing these children to these events to 'normalize' them to it. We can normalize kids to any sin. That isn't healthy for children, it is wicked. You have to be a Christian on this particular issue, there is no middle ground.