Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

[Matt Black]

Apologies if this has been done to death already but I don't think we've debated this for a while.

In the UK, homosexual practice between men was illegal until 1967 (don't know about the US); would posters here suppost criminalisation? If so, why? If so, would you also support the criminalisation of other behaviour which you find morally objectionable such as and sex outside of marriage?

I would not support criminalisation.

First up, there is an important distinction between what one might consider illegal and immoral. For example adultery and sex outside marriage are considered immoral (under "traditional morality") but are not illegal. To criminalise one violation of "traditional" morality, but not others is rather inconsistent.

Second, there is the obvious issue of enforcement. Regulating people's private lives is difficult to police and creates obvious problems. Malicious complaints could be made against people- either those which were false but used as a threat; or to blackmail individuals.

Over to you!

 

[Phillip]

Regardless of what most pastors want, legislating morality usually causes more problems than it cures. IMHO we need to be focused on witnessing to people and changing their lives through Jesus Christ rather than changing their lives with the long-arm of the law.

This certainly does not apply to crimes with victims, such as rape, murder, incest, etc. But, if two people are going to do something, the law won't stop them.

Actually, I believe that some states still hold sex outside of marriage as illegal; although we know that it is never enforced.

 

[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.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Worth repeating

Originally posted by Phillip:
Regardless of what most pastors want, legislating morality usually causes more problems than it cures. IMHO we need to be focused on witnessing to people and changing their lives through Jesus Christ rather than changing their lives with the long-arm of the law.

This certainly does not apply to crimes with victims, such as rape, murder, incest, etc. But, if two people are going to do something, the law won't stop them.

Actually, I believe that some states still hold sex outside of marriage as illegal; although we know that it is never enforced.

 

[fromtheright]

I have no problem with states criminalizing homosexual conduct. That doesn't mean that police agencies go about hunting down homosexuals, and they did not do so in the Texas case which legalized sodomy.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

A slippery slope ftr...a very slippery slope

you have people who see privacy as a major concern and you have christians who love the gospel seeing an opportunity to save people.

You can never ...ever...never...legislate morality but what you can do is present the "Good
News" and we all know that changes things...from
the heart.

 

[Johnv]

The problem with legislating private acts between consenting adults, even acts which may be considered appalling to a broader populus, is that it starts a slippery slope. For example, what if a married couple engaged in oral sex with each other? Prior to the 2003 SCOTUS ruling, that couple would have been fined and/or imprisoned if they lived in Alabama. Same in South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, as well as several states.

In fact, if any of you married persons live in DC, it's illegal for you to engage in any sexual position other than the missionary position.

There is no sortage of hyperwacko preachers who denounce oral sex and the like amongst married persons as deviate and evil behavior.

I'm in agreement with Aslanspal here. You can't legislate morality but you can share the Good News that changes the heart.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, you two are trying to impose your morality on the rest of us.

 

[fromtheright]

There's really nothing slippery about it. It was the law in most states until the last few decades. What has become slippery is the notion that "if it feels good, do it", so morality, and legislation become dependent on sensation and not what is right or wrong. Moral relativism is the morality of the swamp, which is a pretty slippery place.

 

[bapmom]

yeah, we legislate morality all the time! What do you think laws are but a legislation of a moral value?

Dont kill
Dont steal

We arent allowed to lie in court

Dont neglect your kids

These are all laws that are not necessarily part of the laws in every other country. So what makes us Americans think we can "impose" these kinds of moral values on everyone else in our country?

As to the OP, I might support the restricting of public displays of homosexual affection.....at least thats enforcable.

But since we are based on the idea of being a free country for all, that position might be inconsistent with that idea. Id have to think about it more.

 

[fromtheright]

We are a country based on a federalist system which preserves the right, under the 10th Amendment, for states to legislate morality, which they have done since our Founding.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
It was the law in most states until the last few decades.

The law in most states likewise banned oral sex amongst married persons until recently. Do you likewise support that as illegal? They only way you can refute the "slippery slope" argument is to support those laws, in which case your "legislating morality" argument falls apart (since oral sex is not immoral among married persons). If, otoh, you believe that oral sex laws for married persons should be done away with, then it supports the concept of such laws being a slippery slope.

Either way, your position loses consistency.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bapmom:
yeah, we legislate morality all the time! What do you think laws are but a legislation of a moral value?

Dont kill
Dont steal

We arent allowed to lie in court

Dont neglect your kids

You make a good point, bapmom. In these cases, the law prevents the individual liberties of persons from being violated. But in regards to sodomy between two consenting persons, where is the violation of a person's individual liberties? It can be argued that the sodomy law itself violates a person's individual liberties. Yes, it's a liberty to sin, but we are generally granted the liberty to sin so long as other people's liberties are not violated. For exxample: coveting, sloth, and gluttony are sins, but legislating against them would be ridiculous.

 

[fromtheright]

I support the right of states, and the citizens of those states, to determine the law of their respective states. I am not debating whether such behavior is moral among married people, only whether it is proper for the states to pass such legislation. As you know, as a citizenry's views of morality changes, the laws reflect this, hence the fact that many states have repealed such laws. My view is that there is nothing wrong with such behavior between a married couple; therefore, I would support repeal of such laws. If I am in the majority, the law is repealed. Nothing slippery there.

 

[JamieinNH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
... If I am in the majority, the law is repealed. Nothing slippery there. [/QB]

But if we did into this situation, what happens when the "majority" is unChristian and wants to ban churches? Or practicing the Christian faith?

I know it's far reaching, but it could happen.

Why create laws just because "we" whoever we is, think it's right morally?

I agree with the above posts. Teach/Preach the Word of God and let God pull his sheep into the pasture.. All the others will be lost anyways and we can't do anything about it. What we CAN and SHOULD do is preach and teach the Word of God, the rest will take care of itself.

Just my two cents...

Jamie

 

[bapmom]

Jamie,

what you said is exactly where I believe our country is headed eventually. We already have legislation against public displays of anything Christmas being on gov't property. we are starting to see more and more people banning "christmas" ads and things from public areas.

Thats why we have to stand up and start voting for the things we believe in. 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.

I think Id support an individual state's right to ban the PUBLIC display of homosexual contact....its getting very "in your face" in many parts of our country. But I believe it should be a state issue, not a federal one.

 

[fromtheright]

Jamie,

It's a good question that would have been answered had I added what I had thought about, but didn't in that last post, i.e., states passing laws subject to the limitations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment's religion clauses apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, a position I'm not so sure I agree with (especially as to the establishment clause), but which I'll not debate in this thread. If SCOTUS is incorrect and the religious liberty clause doesn't apply to the states, the state's own bill of rights under its own Constitution would govern and remedy should then be sought thereunder.

Why create laws just because "we" whoever we is, think it's right morally?

Well, there's a little more to it than that. Such laws are also passed if a citizenry/legislature thinks it is worthwhile to pass such legislation. The classical view of such laws is that part of the state's duty is to set and preserve a moral atmosphere for its citizens, to preserve a "community's standards" to borrow a phrase from a SCOTUS porn case from many years ago.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Well, you two are trying to impose your morality on the rest of us.

I don't see where they are trying to regulate your morality, CMG. Did they say you should or should not engage in any personal activity and that it should be legal or criminal?

 

[Rocko9]

Has regulating morality ever worked to any succesfull degree.As FTR stated about sodomy laws in Texas the Police took no action to enforce them. So eventually those laws were done away with. God almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin until they were persuaded to change thier ways. So persuading people with the Gospel may be the only viable way to take this on.