Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

[johnp.]

Hello Timothy.

You are right John...

Was that John or Johnv? I'll show the missus if it was me. An anomaly.

...but I differ in the legalizing of same-sex marriage.

They're going to call it marriage and I see no reason to worry about it. A civil contract which enshrines the same rights and responsibilities, as the straights are supposed to be under, is only fair. If a man spends his time with another as a partner long term then they should be next-of-kin because that is what they are, whether we like it or not, and a contract entered into for the legalese. Money is at stake and the individuals need security.

You said: ...it allows for the natural degradation of society. I believe this as well but why is that a bad thing? Are we too comfortable? Surely it would be an oppotunity for us to get off our bums and rub shoulders with sinners, out in the open instead of seedy dangerous enviroments? Mercy should be extended to those who find they are evangelists to the underclass. The underground. Not the queers anymore but there are many others that find they must behave in the shadows and they see that those instructed not to judge are their legislators? Am I out of phase?

...but I differ in the legalizing of same-sex marriage.

The world and it's desires is passing away, let it alone but in calling those that Jesus came to find.
This will bring us more respect from God than offering a bright shining filty rag to Him will. That we were found amongst the sinner not sitting in on their judgement before time. The word marriage, as many words are, will be reassigned another meaning, Babel is not far away any time it suits us, even us Christians. Homosexuality is a sin but everything we do is sin. No sin is worse than another in these things but we should be in there with them. Ready with an helping hand and a word of knowledge but instead we sit at home nodding in agreement with the tele as a sentence is passed down on some criminal or other. Our nodding is also used against us. Prohibition caused more trouble than it was worth. And so it does with prostitution and drugs.

I'm an old hippy and I can remember the reaction of the authorities when they found out that some good stuff might affect the profits they made out of the bad stuff so they legislated against the good stuff, ok, maybe the not so bad stuff, and we seem stuck in someone elses decision. The use of cannabis is more prevelant today than it was at Woodstock, man, they have done nothing to limit the spread of drugs, it's time to wise up to law and it's abilities and it is also time to let go of nationalities. The world is not our home we come from a different country. I'm not saying that about you but it seems as if we have some righteous amongst us.

john.

 

[Roy]

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...

This is an example of that twisted logic that I mentioned in a previous post.

Roy

 

[church mouse guy]

"No, the state must punish those who violate the law."

That statement must be the very heart of the Libertarian point of view.

The state is evil if the laws of the state allow evil. One of the talking points of the nazi party after the war was that the laws of Germany allowed for the murder of Jews and therefore nothing but good was done. That is just about what we have here in the statement that the government only has to enforce the law.

The lottery is legal in Indiana. However, that does not make it good. Abortion is legal in the USA; however that does not make it good. Nor do 2 adults override the law. 1 adult cannot give permission to a 2nd adult to commit a crime against him as long as it is done in the home of the 1st or 2nd.

Roy is correct; this is twisted logic.

 

[Petrel]

It's only twisted logic if the assumption is that only things that are illegal are wrong. None of us assume that. On the other hand, I don't see the logic in saying that everything that is wrong should be illegal.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, Petrel, what they are saying is that there is no ability legally to draw the line, but there is an ability to draw the line. Furthermore, we have seen from history that legalizing something does not make it right, as, for example, it was legal in Germany to execute Jews for reasons of racial purity. No one has ever said that abortion is good because it is legal and I add that the Indiana state lottery is criminal even though it is legal because it bilks the weak-minded and the mentally ill. It is an example of government by evolution--survival of the fittest.

The left is driven by the wealth of the sodomite community and their political contributions to the left. The left earns these contributions by getting concessions for the sodomites that they would otherwise never get. In fact, government money is given to the sodomite community as a subsidy in spite of the fact that sodomites are some of the wealthiest people in America and make no positive contribution whatsoever to society.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
The state is evil if the laws of the state allow evil.

That's an overly nebulous statement. Covetousness, sloth, and gluttony are evil. A proud look is an abomination to the Lord. The state must therefore be evil becasue it does not outlaw these things. Rejecting Christ is evil. Should we therefore outlaw Judaism?

Originally posted by Petrel:
It's only twisted logic if the assumption is that only things that are illegal are wrong. None of us assume that.

I make no such use of logic. If it appears I did, let me assure you that I do not share in that logic.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
The state is evil if the laws of the state allow evil.

That's an overly nebulous statement. Covetousness, sloth, and gluttony are evil. A proud look is an abomination to the Lord. The state must therefore be evil becasue it does not outlaw these things. Rejecting Christ is evil. Should we therefore outlaw Judaism?
</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to go off on a tangent all the time. Covetousness, sloth and gluttony are evil but they are not criminal, nor should they be. There is an ability to draw the line on that issue, also. It is the far-left that wants to control your diet so that you won't get fat, etc.

And the right of the state to make same-sex sodomy illegal does not compare with the call for a theocracy by making Judaism criminal, as was done in Germany and is now happening in the Islamic world.

What the issue is is that same-sex sodomy is not only a sin but is also criminal. We have already decided that the state does have the right to act morally by criminalizing such sins as theft and murder. This perverted act should be illegal also for the protection of innocent people from the incurable, fatal diseases and the mental illness that results, as evidenced by San Francisco.

Furthermore, Canada welcomes such behavior and calls it marriage so that American sodomites have only to move to Canada and be married on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls.

What Sandra Day O'Connor and the Supreme Court did was to take rights away from the states and make a concession to the wealthy political forces that so impress the courts and the politicians. How can she and the others wash the blood off their hands?

We have seen that the Supreme Court has also ruled that your property can be taken away from you and given to someone whom the court favors more. The court and the congress that allows the court to run wild are a disgrace to humanity. And the president has been mute on this also.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Covetousness, sloth and gluttony are evil but they are not criminal, nor should they be.

Then why should sexual acts done by consenting adults in the privacy of their own home be made criminal?

We have already decided that the state does have the right to act morally by criminalizing such sins as theft and murder.

Those actions violate the rights of others. Private sexual acts between two consenting adults does not violate the rights of others. In fact, an argument can be made that making such acts illegal violates the rights of the individual to act in accordance with his own liberties.

This perverted act should be illegal also for the protection of innocent people from the incurable, fatal diseases and the mental illness that results, as evidenced by San Francisco.

That's rather nebulous. Should we make fornication illegal, since those same diseases are likewise spread?

What Sandra Day O'Connor and the Supreme Court did was to take rights away from the states...

So are you saying the states had a right to make sodomy between married persons illegal?

 

[church mouse guy]

No, you cannot ascribe to me what you are saying. That was not the issue of this thread, anyway.

We have already discussed that 1 adult cannot consent to a criminal act by a 2nd adult. The point that you make is the same point that is made by libertarians for the legalization of prostitution and drugs.

The state has a right and a duty to declare same-sex sex illegal. The Pillar of Salt and 4 others took that right away from the state of Indiana in violation of the US Constitution. It is good that the Pillar of Salt is going back to Arizona. I understand that she lives under a rock there.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
No, you cannot ascribe to me what you are saying. That was not the issue of this thread, anyway.

Actually, it is. A common misunderstanding is that sodomy laws are anti-homosexual. Most sodomy laws target both heterosexual and homosexual acts, including oral sex and anal sex. Some sodomy laws included all homosexual or all non-coital sex, including oral sex, frottage, tribadism, and masturbation. Historically, heterosexuals have not been prosecuted for acts covered under sodomy laws.

When the Texas sodomy law was overturned, it nullified laws banning sodomy between married persons in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. Only Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas has same-senger sodomy bans. Nine of the remaining states had their sodomy laws overturned by lower courts. The remaining states had all repealed their sodomy laws long before the SCOTUS Texas case. Of course, WNDites will give the impression that the case was only about gay sodomy, and will give the impression that most states supported a sodomy ban.

We have already discussed that 1 adult cannot consent to a criminal act by a 2nd adult.

That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not criminalization tramples on individual liberties. As much as I abhor the homosexual agenda, I do indeed think that legislating private acts between two fully consenting adults is ridiculous.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]I totally favor laws making sodomy illegal. I do not equate that sin and it's consequences the same way I would your other instances. The effect would be to drive them back into the closet, and that is a good thing IMO. Oh sure, you can reach out to them with some evangelical effort, if you want. If heterosexual sodomy is your bag, just keep it to yourself, just like the homo's should.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Matt.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?

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.

I see the situation as untenable for those couples of the same sex who live together not having the same rights as hetrosexual partners living together. Since straights have rights so should the homosexual and lesbian community. It is unjust that couples who spend many years together, aberrant as that might be to us, should be left financially worse off than their straight counter parts. They have needs the same has we do.

One could easily argue that it my body and I have a right to do what I want with it. (timothy27)

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.
We should as Christians stop moralising and start teaching and preaching and you can't do that after those who need to hear have been driven underground by repressive laws.
If a person wants to stuff powder in his nose or a needle into his arm what has that got to do with us? These type of laws cause more problems and solve nothing.

Morality cannot be legislated for but comes from a renewed spirit. God showed us clearly and unambiguously that the law has no effect but to make matters worse. None of those who received the law in the wilderness entered the promised land but for two.


john. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed completely. There are occasions when ABH/ GBH can be consented to (boxing, wrestling, any kind of contact sport) but generally no (case of Brown -v- DPP)

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by timothy27:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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?


</font>[/QUOTE]No, I don't follow your logic here at all. First off &lt;sigh&gt; I'm not sure how many times I have to make this point, but paedophilia is not between two consenting adults. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by a 'race' issue; you have gays and lesbians from all races, all walks of life.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Roy:
</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...

This is an example of that twisted logic that I mentioned in a previous post.

Roy </font>[/QUOTE]No, just logic.

 

[Martin]

Anyone who knows me will know my answer to the question. Would I support making homosexual behavior illegal? No. Why not? Several reasons.

First if we are to make homosexuality illegal than we need to proceed to make every moral sin illegal. I assure you that drunks, liars, gossips, fornicators, and adulterers do just as much (if not more) damage to society than homosexuals do. Not only that those who wish to make homosexuality illegal while allowing the others to go free are being very selective with the truth. Did you know the Bible says that God HATES, yes hates, the abomination of pride (Prov 6:16-19). Are we going to make pride, a very destructive sin in every way, illegal as well?

Second I do not support the government controlling what adults do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as the people involved are adults, and as long as no person is being harmed (ie..beat, other forms of abuse/torture), held against their will, or forced into sexual activity (ie..rape) I don't wish to see law enforcement get involved. I don't want police looking in people's bedroom windows (etc).

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.


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. Only then can they find true freedom from their sinful lifestyle. Politics is a grand waste of time on matters like this (mainly for Christians). Why use that cheap route when we have the route to freedom? It makes no sense. Notice what the Apostle Paul said after saying that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God:

"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" -1Cor 6:11

What a glorious statement! That needs to be our message to homosexuals! We need to say to them, "you can have freedom from your sin, and its eternal results, by turning away from your sin (repentance) and by turning to Christ! You can be washed in the blood of Jesus (the Lamb of God!), you can be justified, and have the Holy Spirit of the Living God living within you. You can find freedom in Christ! Come to Christ and live and inherit the Kingdom of God". That needs to be the church's message to the homosexual and not we want to put you in jail. Btw the latter attitude towards lost sinners has no support in the New Testament. Sure human government must enforce the laws and protect society (Rom 13) but the New Testament does not command the church to use the government in order to force lost people to pretend they are saved. We are to preach the Gospel.

 

[Matt Black]

Amen!

 

[church mouse guy]

Sorry, Martin, but we can draw the line between alcoholism, etc., and same-sex sex. Really, Martin, you have no constitutional right to tell people in Indiana what to do. We have laws against sodomy and someone like the Pillar of Salt, who lives under a rock in Arizona, has no right to tell people in Indiana what they can do on this issue. And that goes double for that reprobate synagogue of Satan Ginsburg, who should never have been appointed to any court except in a communist country, where she belongs.

 

[Matt Black]

I would draw the line, if anywhere, the other way: alcoholism frequently does affect other people detrimentally, particularly the family of the alcoholic, not to mention the enhanced risk of causing death through DUI; the same cannot be said of same-sex relationships.

[ETA the issue here is not whether the people and state of Indiana have the constitutional right to make their own laws; it is whether they should use that right to criminalise consensual homosexual acts]

 

[church mouse guy]

Matt, the Supreme Court took that right away from Indiana as I understand it. I think that they nationalized the issue. FTR would know better than me.

As for alcoholism, I think that we should consider a car wreck caused by an alcoholic as a serious crime and if death results to the sober driver, the alcoholic should be tried for some degree of murder.

Also, if the public would stop giving money to street beggars, a lot of alcoholism would be slowed down. But if you don't care for people in the ditch, then you would give them money for life-shortening alcohol even if they were alcoholic.

As for no social impact on society, I think that the welfare rolls for Medicaid would show the high rate of disease that society has to treat because of repulsive physical practices. The welfare costs of aids medicine are very high. That issue, Matt, is a non-starter for your side.

These people in question are in a sense stateless persons since they once had their own nation and their own king. Barney Frank may be their international king, but they really are misfits in society and their disease-spreading "lifestyle" cannot be tolerated. Canada has legalized them so they can go there, if not to Belgium, Spain, or Holland. There is no need for working, tax-paying people to grant them the slightest concession.

What trees do they plant? None whatsoever. They are miserly, anti-social reprobates.

 

[fromtheright]

CMG, I don't think I know any better than you--you got it exactly right. Lawrence v. Texas did essentially tell states that they could not regulate sexual morality so our argument has become moot because the Supreme Court ignored the 10th Amendment's delegation of the power to decide such issues to the states. You're exactly right, that prior to LvT states decided those issues for themselves so that if Arizona or Massachusetts decided to legalize homosexual conduct they were free to do so. One of the beauties of the federal system. Same with abortion: much as I believe it is evil, it is the prerogative of the states to criminalize it or not; well, at least it was until Roe v. Wade. As LvT remains the law, it will become increasingly internalized within the states whose laws will crumble as Massachusetts' so quickly did under their own judicial despotism, citing that decision.