Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

[Arthur Brain]

Lev 20:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Your are lost in a world of relativity and cannot tell truth from error.

Oh, I can tell far right fundamentalism from sanity any day of the week. The likes of what you propose is just religious extremism and you have no love about you for people at all. Just as well there's no chance of any of it coming about.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Twice. Just in the first book of the New Testament! Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

...
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of ΠΟΡΝ, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

...
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for ΠΟΡΝ, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
...

'ΠΟΡΝ' is the Greek for 'perversion'.

If ΠΟΡΝ is recriminalized, it won't be because of fundamentalism, it will be because we all democratically are persuaded that it is a crime, based on self evidence, that's liberalism. And if not that, it will be because we all democratically agree that it's unethical and so we're going to paternalistically impose our ethics on everybody, that's conservativism. There isn't another option.

Um, nope. That doesn't explicitly state homosexuality at all.

It's all moot as it won't be recriminalized for reasons that should be patently obvious. Democratically, it's only far right religionists who even propose it, so how far's that gonna get?

 

[Idolater]

Um, nope. That doesn't explicitly state homosexuality at all.

Try again:

...
Porneia: The Greek word porneia is more expansive than the term for adultery. English Bible versions often translate it with the word fornication. It covers sexual sin generally and so includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, transgenderism, pornography, etc. The Bible uses the word porneia to refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality and incest (Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1).


SOURCE: https://kgov.com/homosexuality-debate-bob-enyart-vs-wayne-besen

 

[Arthur Brain]

Try again:

No need. No mention of homosexuality expressly stated or emphasized. Not interested in kgov.com frankly.

 

[Idolater]

... No mention of homosexuality expressly stated or emphasized. Not interested in kgov.com frankly.

Then ignore where it comes from and read it, don't commit the 'genetic' fallacy.
Where a proposition comes from doesn't affect its truth or falsity.

...
Porneia: The Greek word porneia is more expansive than the term for adultery. English Bible versions often translate it with the word fornication. It covers sexual sin generally and so includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, transgenderism, pornography, etc. The Bible uses the word porneia to refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality and incest (Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1).

It means perversion. And Christ did mention perversion, and in a negative light. Your narrative, that somehow the Lord didn't and doesn't care about perversion, is perverted in another way. It's perversion of truth.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh, I can tell far right fundamentalism from sanity any day of the week.

And yet you cannot read the PLAIN and CLEAR Word of God.

The likes of what you propose is just religious extremism and you have no love about you for people at all. Just as well there's no chance of any of it coming about.

Your insults are false accusations.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And yet you cannot read the PLAIN and CLEAR Word of God.

Your insults are false accusations.

Try reading Corinthians where it comes to describing love. There's no insult or false accusation at all. You're a clanging cymbal is all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then ignore where it comes from and read it, don't commit the 'genetic' fallacy.
Where a proposition comes from doesn't affect its truth or falsity.

It means perversion. And Christ did mention perversion, and in a negative light. Your narrative, that somehow the Lord didn't and doesn't care about perversion, is perverted in another way. It's perversion of truth.

Again, there's no express sentiment in regards to homosexuality and if it was of such importance as you seem to note, then there'd be a load more wouldn't there, explicitly stated? There isn't. You're Catholic aren't you? What do you think of the pope's stance on the matter?

 

[Right Divider]

Try reading Corinthians where it comes to describing love.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

There's no insult or false accusation at all. You're a clanging cymbal is all.

Believe God.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That has nothing to do with the topic.

Believe God.

Sure it does. Without love what is anything worth in essence? What you promote is completely devoid of it. As to your latter, the description of love in the Bible is the most eloquent and detailed there is and absolutely contrary to what you advocate. Take your own advice.

 

[Right Divider]

Sure it does. Without love what is anything worth in essence? What you promote is completely devoid of it. As to your latter, the description of love in the Bible is the most eloquent and detailed there is and absolutely contrary to what you advocate. Take your own advice.

Love is not telling people what they want to hear. Love requires telling the truth. The truth is that homosexuality is sexual perversion.
If you love someone, you must tell them the truth.

 

[ok doser]

Love is not telling people what they want to hear. Love requires telling the truth. The truth is that homosexuality is sexual perversion.
If you love someone, you must tell them the truth.

Homosexuality is evil.

We all know who loves evil.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Love is not telling people what they want to hear. Love requires telling the truth. The truth is that homosexuality is sexual perversion.
If you love someone, you must tell them the truth.

What you propose aka executing people for being homosexual is not love in the slightest. It's far right, religious extremism, just as it is advocating all manner of else, forcing couples into marriage with no possibility of divorce, executing five year old children for somehow committing "capital crimes" etc. It's simply monstrous.

 

[Right Divider]

What you propose aka executing people for being homosexual is not love in the slightest. It's far right, religious extremism, just as it is advocating all manner of else, forcing couples into marriage with no possibility of divorce, executing five year old children for somehow committing "capital crimes" etc. It's simply monstrous.

People that oppose God reject what He says. You are one of those people.

 

[Arthur Brain]

People that oppose God reject what He says. You are one of those people.

I reject far right religious fundamentalism. I reject the notion that it's somehow 'Godly' to execute five year old children as if they're capable of committing a crime let alone one that deserves death. Frankly, RD, you can shove it. You are loveless.

 

[Right Divider]

I reject far right religious fundamentalism. I reject the notion that it's somehow 'Godly' to execute five year old children as if they're capable of committing a crime let alone one that deserves death. Frankly, RD, you can shove it. You are loveless.

The truth really makes you angry.
You should look into that.

 

[Idolater]

I reject far right religious fundamentalism. I reject the notion that it's somehow 'Godly' to execute five year old children as if they're capable of committing a crime let alone one that deserves death. Frankly, RD, you can shove it. You are loveless.

TL;DR ---- I also reject that.

I am Catholic (I go to weekly Mass, and I get my cookie) and one of the Catholic things I'm considering is whether there exists an unconditional human right against being executed, period. Of course, Pope Francis has put the idea in my head himself, not only in my head, but in everyone's heads, and especially into Catholic heads.

Who read headlines. Because I did not learn about it at Mass.

The papacy's a bit of a 'bully pulpit', the pope's just automatically famous, and Pope Francis uses his fame to communicate to us easily, the press largely does the legwork for him, and for us.

He's put the idea that maybe we all have a right against being executed, of even quote-unquote "justified" execution, out there, and I'm thinking it over. It would have to mean that it would be immoral to ever execute anybody at any time for any reason. Note that the pope explained that it is because of our prisons that this right is coming revealed now, our prisons are so good now that we can afford to be moral with immoral people (violent criminals), without risking our family's lives in the process.

Since it is within our power now to ensure that they will 'rot' in prison, now this right against being executed comes clearer into view, the final blind spot of myopia melts away. The idea that capital punishment is immoral is not new in our generation, it was already here when we were born, it is a traditional idea, it is old. But the idea that there exists a human right, that is absolute, against being executed, strikes at the heart of the history of the Church, because from John the Baptist, to Jesus, Stephen, all the Apostles, each of them were executed ---- they were unarmed and they were put to death.

It would mean that the Nazis were immoral even if every one of their victims was a violent criminal (which of course they weren't). I do kind of like that angle. Anything to pile on the Nazis is good stuff.

 

[ok doser]

Since it is within our power now to ensure that they will 'rot' in prison ...

If I have a right not to be executed, surely I have a right not to be kidnapped and imprisoned to rot for the rest of my life in prison?

 

[Idolater]

If I have a right not to be executed, surely I have a right not to be kidnapped and imprisoned to rot for the rest of my life in prison?

There is by definition no justification to murder, but there are justified killings. If your family's lives are threatened unless you kill an innocent man, then that's not murder. Murder is by definition a free choice. We have the right against being murdered, not just against being killed.

I believe there are absolute rights ('inalienable'), that are never forfeit. The rights against being kidnapped (which is categorically distinct from breaking the law and being arrested for it), being falsely testified against (without justification), being raped and being murdered are some of them, and I'm pondering whether there is also an absolute right against being executed.

You don't have a right to not be punished for committing violent crime, but you might have a right against certain "cruel and unusual" punishments, which might include execution, and probably includes torture, no matter what you do.

 

[ok doser]

There is by definition no justification to murder, but there are justified killings. If your family's lives are threatened unless you kill an innocent man, then that's not murder. Murder is by definition a free choice. We have the right against being murdered, not just against being killed.

I believe there are absolute rights ('inalienable'), that are never forfeit. The rights against being kidnapped (which is categorically distinct from breaking the law and being arrested for it), being falsely testified against (without justification), being raped and being murdered are some of them, and I'm pondering whether there is also an absolute right against being executed.

You don't have a right to not be punished for committing violent crime, but you might have a right against certain "cruel and unusual" punishments, which might include execution, and probably includes torture, no matter what you do.

Being denied my freedom for the rest of my life would be torture for me.