-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Terry_Herrington
New Member
==I have no idea what you are talking about.
Martin. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither does he.
Thanks, FTR. It seems that people in North Carolina, Texas, and Arkansas want to use the black-robed masters to dictate to people in Indiana what we can do.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Martin,
Let me take your points one at a time:
First if we are to make homosexuality illegal than we need to proceed to make every moral sin illegal.
Not true. Even when most states had laws against homosexual practices, I don't believe that a single one had a law against gluttony. There probably wasn't one law, state or federal, against ostentatious displays based in pride. Citizens, through their representatives, almost daily decide what laws should be passed, including those to preserve their communities' moral climate. Passing one law doesn't necessitate passing another.
Second I do not support the government controlling what adults do in the privacy of their own homes....I don't want police looking in people's bedroom windows (etc).
Such laws don't require police surveillance to search for such behavior. In the Texas case noted above, they were not searching for individuals engaging in such behavior but entered their apartment based on a disturbance call--not even the individuals involved questioned the legality or propriety of the police entering their apartment. The arrest was made when they were caught engaging in that behavior, caught as a result of a legal search.
Thirdly how can such a law be enforced? Are police going to follow suspected homosexuals home and peak in their windows? It is not enforceable.
Answered above.
Finally making homosexuality illegal is nothing but a cheap short cut. Christians should be leading homosexuals, and everyone else, to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
No one is proposing the law prevent anyone witnessing to homosexuals. I believe that creating a climate in which society registers its disapproval of such behavior reinforces the likelihood of homosexuals realizing their behavior is wrong, rather than being encouraged by a legal atmosphere that says it is okay.
That needs to be the church's message to the homosexual and not we want to put you in jail.
Punishment need not include a jail sentence. Texas's punishment was a $500.00 fine, IIRC.
New Testament does not command the church to use the government in order to force lost people to pretend they are saved.
No one is arguing that such laws lead anyone to salvation. Such laws aren't based on New Testament command but rather on what a society views as the best way to preserve good values. Even if the existence of such a law doesn't result in a single practicing homosexual being fined, society has registered its disapproval of that behavior.
Let me take your points one at a time:
First if we are to make homosexuality illegal than we need to proceed to make every moral sin illegal.
Not true. Even when most states had laws against homosexual practices, I don't believe that a single one had a law against gluttony. There probably wasn't one law, state or federal, against ostentatious displays based in pride. Citizens, through their representatives, almost daily decide what laws should be passed, including those to preserve their communities' moral climate. Passing one law doesn't necessitate passing another.
Second I do not support the government controlling what adults do in the privacy of their own homes....I don't want police looking in people's bedroom windows (etc).
Such laws don't require police surveillance to search for such behavior. In the Texas case noted above, they were not searching for individuals engaging in such behavior but entered their apartment based on a disturbance call--not even the individuals involved questioned the legality or propriety of the police entering their apartment. The arrest was made when they were caught engaging in that behavior, caught as a result of a legal search.
Thirdly how can such a law be enforced? Are police going to follow suspected homosexuals home and peak in their windows? It is not enforceable.
Answered above.
Finally making homosexuality illegal is nothing but a cheap short cut. Christians should be leading homosexuals, and everyone else, to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
No one is proposing the law prevent anyone witnessing to homosexuals. I believe that creating a climate in which society registers its disapproval of such behavior reinforces the likelihood of homosexuals realizing their behavior is wrong, rather than being encouraged by a legal atmosphere that says it is okay.
That needs to be the church's message to the homosexual and not we want to put you in jail.
Punishment need not include a jail sentence. Texas's punishment was a $500.00 fine, IIRC.
New Testament does not command the church to use the government in order to force lost people to pretend they are saved.
No one is arguing that such laws lead anyone to salvation. Such laws aren't based on New Testament command but rather on what a society views as the best way to preserve good values. Even if the existence of such a law doesn't result in a single practicing homosexual being fined, society has registered its disapproval of that behavior.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Last time I checked, Indiana is part of the United States, unfortunately.
But it does suggest an inconsistency in approach. No-one is doubting that homosexual behaviour was criminalised in the past. What I and other posters are drawing attention to is the jurisprudential and moral anomaly of criminalising it whilst not criminalising other immoral behaviour.
One example does not a sensible policy make; the police have better and more important things to do.
See points and posts passim concerning the moral and jurisprudential inconsistency of this approach.
Last time I checked, Indiana is part of the United States, unfortunately. </font>[/QUOTE]I eat my peas with honey.
I've done it all my life.
It makes them taste funny.
But it keeps them on my knife.
Well, at least you're consistent. A good bulk of Christians on the board will argue that abortion laws should be a states' right, but those same people would favor a federal law that bans elective abortion nationally (thus negating the states' rights argument).
The question I have in this topic is: do you believe a state has the right to legislate the private sex acts of married persons?
==That is certainly true but it is very selective of which morals to base laws on. There is no moral difference between fornication, adultery, lying, homosexuality, murder, and being disobedient to one's parents (Rom 1:24-32). The reason we have a law against murder is because it harms another individual. However homosexuality, like other forms of immorality, are activities adults willfully involve themselves in. It is sin, it is an abomination, and those who do it will not be in heaven (1Cor 6:9-10). However unless the state intends on making laws against the other moral sins and abominations I don't see any reason to make a law against homosexual behavior. In fact I see the push for such laws as the conservative version of "big brother" and "judicial activism". Yes I believe people like James Dobson are pro-judicial activism! They are only opposed to "liberal" judicial activism, not conservative.
___________________________________
==Why have the law then? Why have a speed limit if police are not on traffic patrol? Why have drug laws if police are not looking out for it? It makes no sense to spend money and time to create a law that, for the most part, cannot be enforced (and when it is it is only by chance). Also, I return to my earlier point, why not make a law against fornication, adultery, pornography, and other moral sins? Why single out homosexuality? Why not charge, fine, and/or arrest unmarried couples involved in sexual activity? Again it is being too selective.
______________________________________
==No actually what it usually does is create hostility between homosexuals and Christians. Why? Because they see Christians as the ones pushing for the laws (and in part they are correct). I don't know of one homosexual who has come to Christ thanks to a law. I do know some, however, who have been brought to Christ via a Godly witness and Christ like behavior. If homosexuals are going to be hostile to Christians let it be because we stand for the Gospel of Christ (which offends people- 1Cor 1:23-24) and not because we are involved in different forms of political/social/judicial activism.
______________________________________
==Again then what about laws against other sins? Using your logic by not having laws against them we are saying it is "okay"? Right? I think this is where Christian activists run into trouble. They want to use the government to battle "certain" sins but, of course, they can't use the government to battle "all" sin(s). The only true weapon against sin is the gospel. It does no good to make someone "moral" while they are still on their way to hell (Matt 23:15). Not only this but we have zero New Testament commands or examples of political activism.
_____________________________________
==That kind of thing will change with time. The only unchanging truth is God's Word and the Gospel. I can't base anything on "what a society views" as best, period. Look I predict that within ten years society, as a whole, will approve of homosexuality. Are we then to say that it is okay because society thinks its okay? Certainly not.
__________________________________________
==Ok, but in my view that is a worthless thing. Society is changing and not for the better. Also is it not just a little hypocritical for society to condemn the homosexuals while approving of the fornicators, liars, the greed, the selfish, and the immoral? We can't base anything on society or what it has "registered its disapproval" of because it will change over time. The Word of God, and the truth of judgment, does not change.
Martin.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Martin,
That is certainly true but it is very selective of which morals to base laws on. There is no moral difference between fornication, adultery, lying, homosexuality, murder, and being disobedient to one's parents (Rom 1:24-32). The reason we have a law against murder is because it harms another individual. However homosexuality, like other forms of immorality, are activities adults willfully involve themselves in. It is sin, it is an abomination, and those who do it will not be in heaven (1Cor 6:9-10). However unless the state intends on making laws against the other moral sins and abominations I don't see any reason to make a law against homosexual behavior. In fact I see the push for such laws as the conservative version of "big brother" and "judicial activism". Yes I believe people like James Dobson are pro-judicial activism! They are only opposed to "liberal" judicial activism, not conservative.
Citizens and legislatures are selective on a daily basis. If a majority find that behavior outrageous or becoming increasingly prevalent in the absence of prohibition, they might decide to criminalize it. As to Dobson, surely you understand that favoring legislation does not make him pro judicial activism?
Why have the law then? Why have a speed limit if police are not on traffic patrol? Why have drug laws if police are not looking out for it? It makes no sense to spend money and time to create a law that, for the most part, cannot be enforced (and when it is it is only by chance). Also, I return to my earlier point, why not make a law against fornication, adultery, pornography, and other moral sins? Why single out homosexuality? Why not charge, fine, and/or arrest unmarried couples involved in sexual activity?
First of all, levels of enforcement can vary along a continuum. As I've already explained, it also allows society to register its disapproval of it. Along that continuum is Texas's policy which I've touched on. Matt Black's answer to that ("one example does not a sensible policy make") ignores the point that it was mentioned as an example of legislating such behavior without requiring police knocking down doors as its opponents here seem to think is required with such legislation.
Again it is being too selective.
Is your argument that it is unfair because it "picks on" homosexuals? That it is wiser to prohibit the entire range of behaviors? So, the only reason you might favor laws against bestiality is that it involves abuse of animals, and not its moral reprehensibility? Why is it abuse if it does not cause them pain? Isn't using a horse as a beast of burden no less an abuse?
I don't know of one homosexual who has come to Christ thanks to a law. I do know some, however, who have been brought to Christ via a Godly witness and Christ like behavior. If homosexuals are going to be hostile to Christians let it be because we stand for the Gospel of Christ (which offends people- 1Cor 1:23-24) and not because we are involved in different forms of political/social/judicial activism.
Could the same not be said of pedophilia? I don't support laws against homosexual conduct based on the likelihood homosexuals will come to Christ but rather because it is morally outrageous conduct that should be prohibited. I don't support laws against murder based on their deterrent effect but rather because murder is a bad thing and should be punished.
Again then what about laws against other sins? Using your logic by not having laws against them we are saying it is "okay"? Right? I think this is where Christian activists run into trouble. They want to use the government to battle "certain" sins but, of course, they can't use the government to battle "all" sin(s). The only true weapon against sin is the gospel. It does no good to make someone "moral" while they are still on their way to hell (Matt 23:15). Not only this but we have zero New Testament commands or examples of political activism.
This isn't a matter of those awful Christian activists imposing their will. Such laws are firmly rooted in our own history, long before Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.
Look I predict that within ten years society, as a whole, will approve of homosexuality. Are we then to say that it is okay because society thinks its okay? Certainly not.
Martin, with all due respect, if this comes to pass, I believe it will be partly due to the beliefs and efforts of well-meaning folks like yourselves who are ready to permit it. Certainly those most to blame for such an outcome are those who are actively seeking it, those who are arguing "who are we to judge" of its immorality, but the "we can't or shouldn't stop it" mindset will allow this to happen.
Johnv,
The question I have in this topic is: do you believe a state has the right to legislate the private sex acts of married persons?
Now you make it a tougher debate, for sure. I don't believe, as a matter of natural law, that the state has such a right. Constitutionally, it gets to be a tougher issue, though. Contrary to the view of many conservatives, I believe that there is a Ninth Amendment right to privacy but I place that right in the context of the Tenth Amendment's reservation of the power to regulate the health, safety, and morality (a prevalent definition of what is often called the state's police power under the latter amendment) to the states. Constitutionally the question then is whether a Ninth Amendment right (which I believe is the case you have cited), limited by the Tenth Amendment's state police powers, is enforceable through the federal government, i.e., whether it becomes a federal Constitutional issue, subject to review by the federal courts and the Supreme Court. I believe it is, but that is a tough call.
That is certainly true but it is very selective of which morals to base laws on. There is no moral difference between fornication, adultery, lying, homosexuality, murder, and being disobedient to one's parents (Rom 1:24-32). The reason we have a law against murder is because it harms another individual. However homosexuality, like other forms of immorality, are activities adults willfully involve themselves in. It is sin, it is an abomination, and those who do it will not be in heaven (1Cor 6:9-10). However unless the state intends on making laws against the other moral sins and abominations I don't see any reason to make a law against homosexual behavior. In fact I see the push for such laws as the conservative version of "big brother" and "judicial activism". Yes I believe people like James Dobson are pro-judicial activism! They are only opposed to "liberal" judicial activism, not conservative.
Citizens and legislatures are selective on a daily basis. If a majority find that behavior outrageous or becoming increasingly prevalent in the absence of prohibition, they might decide to criminalize it. As to Dobson, surely you understand that favoring legislation does not make him pro judicial activism?
Why have the law then? Why have a speed limit if police are not on traffic patrol? Why have drug laws if police are not looking out for it? It makes no sense to spend money and time to create a law that, for the most part, cannot be enforced (and when it is it is only by chance). Also, I return to my earlier point, why not make a law against fornication, adultery, pornography, and other moral sins? Why single out homosexuality? Why not charge, fine, and/or arrest unmarried couples involved in sexual activity?
First of all, levels of enforcement can vary along a continuum. As I've already explained, it also allows society to register its disapproval of it. Along that continuum is Texas's policy which I've touched on. Matt Black's answer to that ("one example does not a sensible policy make") ignores the point that it was mentioned as an example of legislating such behavior without requiring police knocking down doors as its opponents here seem to think is required with such legislation.
Again it is being too selective.
Is your argument that it is unfair because it "picks on" homosexuals? That it is wiser to prohibit the entire range of behaviors? So, the only reason you might favor laws against bestiality is that it involves abuse of animals, and not its moral reprehensibility? Why is it abuse if it does not cause them pain? Isn't using a horse as a beast of burden no less an abuse?
I don't know of one homosexual who has come to Christ thanks to a law. I do know some, however, who have been brought to Christ via a Godly witness and Christ like behavior. If homosexuals are going to be hostile to Christians let it be because we stand for the Gospel of Christ (which offends people- 1Cor 1:23-24) and not because we are involved in different forms of political/social/judicial activism.
Could the same not be said of pedophilia? I don't support laws against homosexual conduct based on the likelihood homosexuals will come to Christ but rather because it is morally outrageous conduct that should be prohibited. I don't support laws against murder based on their deterrent effect but rather because murder is a bad thing and should be punished.
Again then what about laws against other sins? Using your logic by not having laws against them we are saying it is "okay"? Right? I think this is where Christian activists run into trouble. They want to use the government to battle "certain" sins but, of course, they can't use the government to battle "all" sin(s). The only true weapon against sin is the gospel. It does no good to make someone "moral" while they are still on their way to hell (Matt 23:15). Not only this but we have zero New Testament commands or examples of political activism.
This isn't a matter of those awful Christian activists imposing their will. Such laws are firmly rooted in our own history, long before Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.
Look I predict that within ten years society, as a whole, will approve of homosexuality. Are we then to say that it is okay because society thinks its okay? Certainly not.
Martin, with all due respect, if this comes to pass, I believe it will be partly due to the beliefs and efforts of well-meaning folks like yourselves who are ready to permit it. Certainly those most to blame for such an outcome are those who are actively seeking it, those who are arguing "who are we to judge" of its immorality, but the "we can't or shouldn't stop it" mindset will allow this to happen.
Johnv,
The question I have in this topic is: do you believe a state has the right to legislate the private sex acts of married persons?
Now you make it a tougher debate, for sure. I don't believe, as a matter of natural law, that the state has such a right. Constitutionally, it gets to be a tougher issue, though. Contrary to the view of many conservatives, I believe that there is a Ninth Amendment right to privacy but I place that right in the context of the Tenth Amendment's reservation of the power to regulate the health, safety, and morality (a prevalent definition of what is often called the state's police power under the latter amendment) to the states. Constitutionally the question then is whether a Ninth Amendment right (which I believe is the case you have cited), limited by the Tenth Amendment's state police powers, is enforceable through the federal government, i.e., whether it becomes a federal Constitutional issue, subject to review by the federal courts and the Supreme Court. I believe it is, but that is a tough call.
<SIGH><SIGH> I'm not quite sure how many times I need to say it but pedophilia and homosexual behaviour are NOT legal equivalents: the former is an immoral act between an adult and another non-consensual (or legally incapable of giving their consent)individual ie: a minor, whereas the latter is an immoral act between two consenting adults. The former therefore is legally on a par with rape and is rightly outlawed; the latter is on a par with adultery or any other kind of sex outside of marriage between consenting adults and is rightly not outlawed.
Yes, but part of the question in my OP was the issue of whether it was right for those laws to have existed in the first place.
It is so sad that England has become so European that they have become concerned with questions like this one, which in the case of the USA has become another example of judicial activism nationalizing illegally a local issue to please Democrats and their interest groups. It is safe to say that if gays and lesbians were not nearly 100% liberal, then the Democrats would not be interested in furthering the gay agenda. As for England, I think that a conservative evangelical in spite of the cries to the contrary must be extinct or nearly so.
The key to showing this issue as a liberals only issue is the golden rule. None of the people here advocating the legalization of sodomy want to be sodomized themselves. They just think it is okay if someone else gets sodomized. And none of the people here advocating the legalization of sodomy express concern over the medical devestation caused by being sodomized.
The key to showing this issue as a liberals only issue is the golden rule. None of the people here advocating the legalization of sodomy want to be sodomized themselves. They just think it is okay if someone else gets sodomized. And none of the people here advocating the legalization of sodomy express concern over the medical devestation caused by being sodomized.
==I oppose beastiality because (a) the Bible condemns it and (b) it hurts an innocent animal. My argument here, as I have said before, is dealing with two "adults" who make a "choice". This clearly does not include these types of behaviors. Should there be laws against beastiality? Yes but not because it is sin but rather because it hurts the animals and takes advantage of them. They don't have a choice in the matter. It is, I guess, a form of rape. I would point out that there are many, many things that are legal in our society that are sinful. Yet we don't see activists wishing to make those behaviors illegal.
_________________________________________
==No, these are two seperate issues. With one we are dealing with consenting adults, the other we are not.
____________________________________________
==So? That does not mean that it is logical or Biblical.
_________________________________
==Actually no, it will be because we are coming closer to the end of the age (2Tim 3:1-5,13, etc). Politics is a useless weapon against sin only the Gospel can stop sin's horrible spread.
Martin.
Er...once again I have no idea what you are on about here. Your last two sentences are tantamount to saying that those who are happy with heterosexual sex being legal don't want to have sex themselves and therefore it should be criminalised.
The Wolfenden Report of 1957 is good reading in explaining the jurisprudential rationale in the UK for decriminalisation
Modernists don't care for people in the ditch. If you are an alcoholic, for example, and begging on the street, they will give you money for alcohol just to get rid of you even though they know that more alcohol for an alcoholic merely leads to an earlier death.
So it is with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He could care less the plight of people in the ditch. He himself lives in a palace. Nevertheless he wishes a dysfunctional lifestyle upon other men. I suppose like most libertarians he would say that he himself did not say that it was good for you or that he himself would do it but nevertheless he would allow you to make that mistake as long as you did not complain to him. That is not Christian charity to consign people that you don't like to the dust bin, or in this case, to the medical welfare hospital.
The United States Supreme Court should allow the individual states to keep sodomy as illegal. People in Indiana do not want to be European in jurisprudence, which we consider inferior because it does not have Christianity as an anchor but says that the command of the king is the law of the land and cannot be considered either right or wrong morally. Nor do we want people in Texas and North Carolina and Arkansas telling us how to run the state of Indiana through Supreme Court decisions taking away the right of Indiana to govern herself.
Natural law is not nonsense on stilts. It was vague but that can be corrected. Human rights abuse is going to occur whenever Christian principles are not the basis of everyday law.
So it is with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He could care less the plight of people in the ditch. He himself lives in a palace. Nevertheless he wishes a dysfunctional lifestyle upon other men. I suppose like most libertarians he would say that he himself did not say that it was good for you or that he himself would do it but nevertheless he would allow you to make that mistake as long as you did not complain to him. That is not Christian charity to consign people that you don't like to the dust bin, or in this case, to the medical welfare hospital.
The United States Supreme Court should allow the individual states to keep sodomy as illegal. People in Indiana do not want to be European in jurisprudence, which we consider inferior because it does not have Christianity as an anchor but says that the command of the king is the law of the land and cannot be considered either right or wrong morally. Nor do we want people in Texas and North Carolina and Arkansas telling us how to run the state of Indiana through Supreme Court decisions taking away the right of Indiana to govern herself.
Natural law is not nonsense on stilts. It was vague but that can be corrected. Human rights abuse is going to occur whenever Christian principles are not the basis of everyday law.