Read it, and thought to myself that 3/4 of all voting Texans must be God-fearin' folk.
Now, people that disagree with you, no common sense ?
Now, people that disagree with you, no common sense ?
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!
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.Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
Adultery and fornication have been against the law and may still be in Indiana--I am not sure.Originally posted by Matt Black:
So presumably you would also be infavour of the criminalisation of adultery and other forms of fornication? Otherwise it seems to me that you are intolerant of some forms of immorality and tolerant of others...
Adultery and fornication have been against the law and may still be in Indiana--I am not sure.Originally posted by church mouse guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
So presumably you would also be infavour of the criminalisation of adultery and other forms of fornication? Otherwise it seems to me that you are intolerant of some forms of immorality and tolerant of others...
Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Wouldn't you regulate pornography?
The government has the right to define marriage
to criminalize prostitution
to criminalize sex with minors
Animal regulations are a diffent "animal" (pardon the pun) from the issue of private behavior among consenting adults.and to criminalize sex with animals.
You are saying that the government has to allow same-sex sodomy or the government is intrusive and trying to replace the church.
If a male try to seduce a 10-year-old girl in the privacy of his home, he is still guilty of a heinous crime...
and the same with the other abominal acts which the privacy of the home does not cloak from the law.
Yes. That limit shoud be when another person's liberties are violated. Two people fornicating in the privacy of their own home does not violate anyone else's liberties.A man's home may be his castle but only within limits.
No, the state must punish those who violate the law.The state must punish evil.
Private sexual behaviour is private and should not be taken account by the law makers except where this results in serious injury. We have laws already in such cases I should imagine, Actual Bodily Harm and it's big brother Grievous BH. I'm sure you will correct me but I think that it is not possible under the law to give another permission to cause harm to yourself. So what actually causes harm is harmful behaviour regardless to what the activity was that brought it about.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?
It's my body and it has nothing to do with anyone else what I do with it but God. It's an easy argument and sound.One could easily argue that it my body and I have a right to do what I want with it. (timothy27)
Fornication does not involve what society considers a race. Homosexuality does. Therefore it does and would not fall under the same guidelines as homosexuality. The problem with the idea of not having a set of laws or whatever you want to call them is that it allows for the natural degradation of society. If you allow for the belief that homosexuality is genetic then you also have to allow for the belief the pedophilia is genetic, bestiality is genetic, drug use etc, etc. That being said the priests in the Catholic church did nothing wrong they were just giving in to their natural desires, and should be protected not punished. You see where this line of thinking goes?Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely; the Bible also condemns fornication and yet AFAIK no legal actions have been brought against Bible publishers or churches by heterosexual couples living together.
Not sure what your point is, but for the record, the United States is not a democracy.Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
So flat out democracy is not the God-blessed system to be militarily forced upon the world? Democracy sounds really good until the majority are for eliminating the minority or the rights of the minority, especially when the minority is me. If homosexuality is evil and criminal then it should be punished. If not, then it shouldn't. Who decides what's evil and criminal? God should. But when man decides, he may wrongly decide that some good things are really evil, like Christians for example, and proceed to try to exterminate them from the face of the earth.
Democracy is fine when the people are "moral".
Autocracy is fine when the leader is a benevolent dictator.
Communism is fine if the people are "moral" and unselfish.
While I don't agree with your premise, it's not an argument in this topic. The argument here is not whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual. The argument is whether the government should be legislating private acts. If a heterosexual went out to party and ended up committing sodomy with a guy, that doesn't make him homosexual (promiscuous, yes, an idiot, yes, but a homosexual, no). Meanwhiile, if another guy goes to a party, picks up a girl, and then then fornicate, why should they be excused from incarceration while the previous person should be incarcerated? It simply makes no legal sense.Originally posted by timothy27:
Fornication does not involve what society considers a race. Homosexuality does.
While I don't agree with your premise, it's not an argument in this topic. The argument here is not whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual. The argument is whether the government should be legislating private acts. If a heterosexual went out to party and ended up committing sodomy with a guy, that doesn't make him homosexual (promiscuous, yes, an idiot, yes, but a homosexual, no). Meanwhiile, if another guy goes to a party, picks up a girl, and then then fornicate, why should they be excused from incarceration while the previous person should be incarcerated? It simply makes no legal sense. </font>[/QUOTE]This was exactly my point. Let me qualify what I'm saying; however: I do not believe that we should sanction gay marriage by the government.Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy27:
Fornication does not involve what society considers a race. Homosexuality does.
I neglected to mention that earlier. It's a civil tort. It's obviously a covanental/contractual violation, and most states use the issue of adultery when considering division of assets and custody.Originally posted by Kiffen:
There actually is a valid argument for criminalizing Adultery because it is a violation of a Marriage contract.