Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bapmom:
We already have legislation against public displays of anything Christmas being on gov't property.

That's completely untrue. In fact, courts have upheld religious Christmas, Hanukkah, and simlar displays, when done in a cultural context. My own cty has a nativity in their central plaza. They also have a Christmas tree, menorah, and santa claus. Over city hall are candles with the words "joy" and "peace on earth" on a banner.

If we are in the majority we get our laws passed, if we are not in the majority we get voted down. Every law has been passed because the majority thought it was right morally.

Not necessarily. Laws that violate the US or state constitutions are strtuck down, regardless of whether they were passed by ballot or by bill.

I think Id support an individual state's right to ban the PUBLIC display of homosexual contact.

What would you consider homosexual contact? Two men hugging? kissing? holding hands? I've done this with men, and I'm not homosexual.

 

[Rocko9]

I think Id support an individual state's right to ban the PUBLIC display of homosexual contact.

What would you consider homosexual contact? Two men hugging? kissing? holding hands? I've done this with men, and I'm not homosexual. [/QB][/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------
George Bush has done it Prince Abdullah lots of times, is he Gay?

 

[bapmom]

Johnv,

we have many instances where Christmas decorations are NOT allowed because its gov't property. I did not say that this was true in ALL states.

Public displays of gay affection would be what is seen in "gay pride parades."

I think you and me both understand what Im talking about.....so please, don't make me describe it....

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Don't forget: if they can regulate what homosexuals can and cannot do, what would stop them from regulating what the rest of us do?

Regards,
BiR

 

[Matt Black]

Bapmom, I think the distinction between the laws ref the behaviour you quoted (theft, murder, etc) is that these directly affect other people whereas sexual behaviour (of any kind) between two consenting and legally competent adults does not (unless they're doing it right in front of me but there are already laws, at least in the UK, which criminalise that).

The question my OP asks is essentially: should private sexual behaviour between the above adults be the subject of criminal sanction and, if so, what types of sexual behaviour and why?

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Too late--the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of the reprobate Sandra Day O'Connor (the pillar of salt from Arizona) has already legalized sodomy in the USA. May God reproach her to her homely face.

I believe the leadership of the Supreme Court was Chief Justice William Renquist. As for ad hominem name calling, homeliness (as well as beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. Has no bearing on her rulings. Personal attacks based on one's looks is not very Christian. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow! How are things in left field. The late Chief Justice did not vote to legalize sodomy. Sandra Day O'Connor did. She is a pillar of salt like Mrs. Lot. She looks like sin and she acts like sin and she votes for demonic things. Do you think that same-sex sodomy should be legal? That is merely a call for the spread of STDs and the spread of Aids and the spread of mental illness. Society has a duty to stand against the prostitution of men and women, the molestation of childred, and the practice of bestiality as well as same-sex sex. Justice O'Connor is in the tradition of Mrs. Lot and she does look like sin and probably stinks like it too.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Don't forget: if they can regulate what homosexuals can and cannot do, what would stop them from regulating what the rest of us do?

Regards,
BiR

Greetings, BiR, whatever airport you are in at the moment in your businesslife.

The reprobates are only 1 or 2 percent of the population so we don't have to take orders from them. Didn't you see that Texas voted 3 to 1 not to legalize same-sex marriage? Majority rules; minority has rights.

Just say no to sloppy agape.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bapmom:
we have many instances where Christmas decorations are NOT allowed because its gov't property. I did not say that this was true in ALL states.

It is not true in any state. If a local governing body has decided to refrain from religious decor as a matter of local policy, that's their choice. There is no legislation forbidding it, nor is there legislation requiring it.

Public displays of gay affection would be what is seen in "gay pride parades."

I've never been to a gay pride parade. Again, what are you referring to? Guys holding hands? Guys wearing leather pants and no shirt??

I think you and me both understand what Im talking about.....so please, don't make me describe it....

TO be honest, I'm curious as to what you'd legislate for a gay person that you would permit publicly for a straight person. I personally think several male/female public displays of affection are offensive, but I wouldn't support legislation banning it.

 

[hillclimber]

These laws would be enacted for all. It's just the sodomites that would howl the loudest. These laws probably wouldn't effect them in the privacy of their own houses just as we are protected in our homes. It would curb their enthusiasm for public display of their deviency. I hope.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
These laws would be enacted for all. It's just the sodomites that would howl the loudest. These laws probably wouldn't effect them in the privacy of their own houses just as we are protected in our homes.

Since you favor laws not effect people in the privacy of their own homes, it baffles me that you denounce the invalidation of the Texas sodomy law (which invalidated heteroseual sodomy laws that several states had, though WNDites never mention that).

I freely and bold say that I do not favor laws that make sodomy illegal. I likewise do not favor laws that ban fornication, gluttony, sloth, drunkenness, envy, or covetousness in the privacy of one's own home. I do, however, boldly and without hesitation acknowlege that these are sins, that we, the church, need to encurage people to refrain from, and give them the tools to avoid.

 

[church mouse guy]

The legalization of same-sex sodomy is an abomination because it says that to society and government that some people are throwaways. It is the duty of the government to protect the weak. The legalization of same-sex sodomy only swells the welfare rolls with people with incurable physical diseases and with mental illness that results from such an abomination.

It is the libertarians who think that as long as you don't throw your trash in their yard, everything else you do is okay. I disagree living in an urban neighborhood racked with every vice. In fact, I think it is criminal for the state of Indiana to run a lottery to fleece the weak-minded and the mentally ill.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
The legalization of same-sex sodomy is an abomination because it says that to society and government that some people are throwaways. It is the duty of the government to protect the weak. The legalization of same-sex sodomy only swells the welfare rolls with people with incurable physical diseases and with mental illness that results from such an abomination.

Then you should likewise make fornication, gluttony, sloth, drunkenness, envy, taking the Lord's name, and covetousness illegal. Ya can't be selective about individual liberties.

No thanks, as much as I abhor these things, I'll prefer that the government stay out of our private homes and refrain from enacting such bans. I will continue to rely on scripture, not the law, for my moral compass. Others are welcome to do likewise, or not.

 

[Daisy]

I think that any husband caught cheating should be imprisoned for several years, possibly tortured (no major organ failure, but a lot of waterboarding would be good). If a wife is caught cheating, she should be given a good talking-to with mandated marriage counseling.

Opposite-sex sodomy (yuck) should be illegal, but same-sex doesn't concern me, so live & let live on that. Gluttony & sloth should be given a pass but covetousness and taking the Lord's name in vain should be severely sanctioned.

In short, you stink but I smell like sweet basil.

 

[bapmom]

ok Johnv,
you are starting to convince me.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daisy:
... Gluttony & sloth should be given a pass but covetousness and taking the Lord's name in vain should be severely sanctioned.

This is practically a death sentence to men during a Super Bowl party

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
... Gluttony & sloth should be given a pass but covetousness and taking the Lord's name in vain should be severely sanctioned.

This is practically a death sentence to men during a Super Bowl party </font>[/QUOTE]Oh well, maybe, but, you know, price of freedom and all...**shrugs**

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Didn't you see that Texas voted 3 to 1 not to legalize same-sex marriage?

We did'nt all vote in favor of this amendment in Texas, some of us have some common sense.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So people who don't agree with you are stupid ? Only dummies are against homosexual weddings ?

 

[fromtheright]

Rocko9,

As FTR stated about sodomy laws in Texas the Police took no action to enforce them. So eventually those laws were done away with.

Perhaps I should clarify: the Texas sodomy law wasn't eventually done away with, it was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.


bapmom,

Please don't be taken in by Johnv's wiles.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
So people who don't agree with you are stupid ? Only dummies are against homosexual weddings ?

Speaking of stupid! If you had read the proposed amendment, you would see that it was not all about weddings, Bro. Curtis.