Would you criminalize homosexual act if you had the chance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBreak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DexUK said:
Well, to be entirely accurate, even sodomy doesn’t automatically cause disease. A person has to have a disease in the first place.
Click to expand...
Anal intercourse does, which is part of sodomy.
This is why I really dislike a lot of what is said about homosexuals on here: it’s the short-cuts people take that mark their words out as both uncharitable and quite simply plain wrong. Then people take these inaccurate (at best) statements and repeat them as absolute fact, entrenching prejudice in people who were already liable to be uncharitable.
Click to expand...
If we’re going to make statements about the subject, it behoves us all to be accurate about what we accuse people of.
Click to expand...
We are facing two extremes here I think, on one hand there are some people who are opposing homosexuals and homosexual intercourse (acts), than on the other hand there are those supporting homosexuals and supporting homosexual intercourse (acts) with things like same sex marriage.

I think it’s good and important to support homosexuals including all people and to show love and compassion towards them, as thats only right and just, however Im very much against supporting the acts of homosexuality with things like same sex marriage.

It comes down to “hate the sin love the sinner” too many are claiming with same sex marriage that the only way to love the sinner is to love and encourage the sin, which is not love or compassion at all.

True love and compassion requires loveing the sinner and opposing the sin, which is why I oppose same sex marriage.

I don’t understand when it comes to christians supporting same sex marriage, because It’s a false compassion to support same sex marriage or encourage the acts of homosexuality, it is not true love, if Christians know better, than why do they do worse by voting for same sex marriage? by encouraging homosexuals to act on their disordered desires? because thats not love or compassion at all I think.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Gaerteuth said:
So we’re on the same page.
Click to expand...
The question is what “sin” is- or whatever you’d like to call it.
Which brings me back to the question of whether we can really trust that Catholicism is divinely inspired (in the 21st century) or if it’s become a political tool now.
Click to expand...
Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.

If a thing is considered to be divinely inspired in the first century and in the 21st century recgonizing that divinity has no time and St. Paul says that the Church was the mystery hidden for all ages, knowing that we believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow and that the Church is the Body of Christ…we can trust what was, what is and what will be…

Explain the Church being made a political tool. If a tool, wielded by whom?
If what I’m saying is right (which at this point is not known by me or you) then it would be safe to assume that the lawmaking process could be influenced by it according to their agenda. That’s what I fear, because it could grow into clerical fascism in the same way that radical liberalism could potentially grow into Communism.
Click to expand...
If you were correct at any level then of course you would be right however in the context of this discussion what is it you believe you are right about?

Whose agenda?

What is it you fear?
(I’m a lefty myself, but I’m very very close to the center. I think the problem is going -too far- in either direction is where problems come up, no matter which wing)
Click to expand...
Lefty? You mean liberal? What problem?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Dex UK

**If we’re going to make statements about the subject, it behoves us all to be accurate about what we accuse people of. **

And this is accurate.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/723699/posts

You are pathetically out of touch with the real world. Grow up. Sodomy is evil. Stop damning the people who say it is.
Click to expand...
So I checked you link and the sources, exactly one worked, the first one to which I reply
"authors of study:
In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. **In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.**4
Click to expand...
source
Forkfoot said:
Ah, so like a sliding scale type deal? Taking into account their net income and what sort of gay sex act they were engaged in when they got caught?
Click to expand...
God is just therefore everyone who engages that act should use the same sliding scale, why should the fines for sodomy be exclusive to homosexuals? Heterosexuals do it too.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
God is just therefore everyone who engages that act should use the same sliding scale, why should the fines for sodomy be exclusive to homosexuals? Heterosexuals do it too.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t have a problem with making it illegal for everyone “gay” or straight.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
There were people who strongly disagreed with the inclusion of homosexuality, I don’t think anyone objected to the inclusion.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that truth is a function of democracy or feelings? That truth is not be something above feelings?

Either homosexuality is truly a disorder or it is not, regardless of what people say or feel. This is why I do not understand the APA’s change of mind–that was not based on scientific evidence at all;.
 
fix said:
It is a good start.
Click to expand...
A good start to what, specifically? How much further would you take it than its essentially unenforced and unenforceable status?
fix said:
We still have adultery laws in place. One was enforced in New York in 2010.
Click to expand...
If it’s the case google lead me to, that would be the case where a couple decided to have sex on a picnic table in a public park in broad daylight. They wanted to charge them with as much as they could, so they added the adultery charge. So basically the same as with rape charges; just there as a decoration so the “moral majority” can feel like they’re winning something, but completely unenforced except to add charges to other crimes and misdemeanors.
 
TheBreak said:
English is not my native language, you might find some errors and I apologize for that.

I need clear answer, if you had the chance would you make homosexual acts illegal like in some countries, would you make someone go to jail or might even get killed if he/she had homosexual sex?
Click to expand...
I would say yes; however, how I would enforce such a law is still unknown to me so I can’t really answer the second part of your question. I would like to also add that my law would be against the act’s not the sexuality. There is a huge difference since sodomy can be practiced even in heterosexual relationships. I personally see any law that keeps in conformity with God’s law as being both beneficial for my country and for the immortal soul of the individuals. Plus as a leader or person who held an office that enacted laws, I would be responsible for the wellbeing of the souls who resided in my country or province and on the Day of Judgment, I would have to answer for the things I have done and haven’t done.

The sad thing is, in this day in age when people hear the word freedom they think it means* ”the ability to do what you want"*, when in actuality freedom means “the ability to do what you ought.” and every one ought to follow God’s law.
 
Forkfoot said:
A good start to what, specifically? How much further would you take it than its essentially unenforced and unenforceable status?

If it’s the case google lead me to, that would be the case where a couple decided to have sex on a picnic table in a public park in broad daylight. They wanted to charge them with as much as they could, so they added the adultery charge. So basically the same as with rape charges; just there as a decoration so the “moral majority” can feel like they’re winning something, but completely unenforced except to add charges to other crimes and misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
Each State can make up their own laws and penalties. The point is there is nothing immoral about these laws. In fact, they promote morality.
 
Heliotropium said:
I would say yes; however, how I would enforce such a law is still unknown to me so I can’t really answer the second part of your question. I would like to also add that my law would be against the act’s not the sexuality. There is a huge difference since sodomy can be practiced even in heterosexual relationships. I personally see any law that keeps in conformity with God’s law as being both beneficial for my country and for the immortal souls of the individual. Plus as a leader or person who held an office that enacted laws, I would be responsible for the wellbeing of the souls who resided in my country or province and on the Day of Judgment, I would have to answer for the things I have done and haven’t done.

The sad thing is, in this day in age when people hear the word freedom they think it means* ”the ability to do what you want"*, when in actuality freedom means “the ability to do what you ought.” and every one ought to follow God’s law.
Click to expand...
Very well said. Too bad such wisdom is lost on a culture that embraces license as freedom.
 
I get the distinct impression that most people who would want to live in a theocracy would only want to do so if it conformed exactly to their own personal beliefs and inclinations; if *they *got to control what those specific theocratic laws were. Which is funny, cuz you’d be calling it a theocracy when really it’s just a dictatorship where you placed yourself in the “theos” role.
 
Forkfoot said:
I get the distinct impression that most people who would want to live in a theocracy would only want to do so if it conformed exactly to their own personal beliefs and inclinations; if *they *got to control what those specific theocratic laws were. Which is funny, cuz you’d be calling it a theocracy when really it’s just a dictatorship where you placed yourself in the “theos” role.
Click to expand...
It is not about a theocracy. These issues are about the natural moral law. If you start talking about forcing people to attend mass then you have a theocracy. The real issue is people do not see these vices as a serious evil. That is the problem.
 
fix said:
It is not about a theocracy. These issues are about the natural moral law. If you start talking about forcing people to attend mass then you have a theocracy. The real issue is people do not see these vices as a serious evil. That is the problem.
Click to expand...
A problem worthy of using government force to correct? We will punish you to the farthest extent of the law to force you to see things our way?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
God is just therefore everyone who engages that act should use the same sliding scale, why should the fines for sodomy be exclusive to homosexuals? Heterosexuals do it too.
Click to expand...
livingwordunity said:
I wouldn’t have a problem with making it illegal for everyone “gay” or straight.
Click to expand...
Forkfoot said:
Ah, but how to enforce such a law? Mandatory state-controlled video cameras in every bedroom, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Simple, arrest anyone, “gay” or straight, who publicly admits to doing anal sex. Equal opportunity punishment.
 
fix said:
Each State can make up their own laws and penalties. The point is there is nothing immoral about these laws. In fact, they promote morality.
Click to expand...
Dear fix,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear, jolly well said.

Any legislation that promotes public morality can only but further the common good of society generally - “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14: 34). When a righteous government gives public countenance to the practice and profession of virtue it elevates people’s minds and qualifies a nation for the favour of God. Contrariwise, if a nation gives legal support to vice it disgraces it and promotes the practice of sin, to say nothing of evoking the righteous anger of God (Rom. 1: 18).

Today, dear friend, the increasing prevalence of homosexual perversion, complacently regarded by the avante-garde as a perfectly legitmate alternative lifestyle is a mark of God’s wrath on a civilisation that boasts of its post-Christian character.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top