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.
Dakota_Roberts said:
Considering Coptic has quoted case studies as evidence it seems just fine. What do you mean “abuse statistic” [sic]?

If they were activists it wouldn’t matter as if homosexuality is a mental illness they should been have been able to find at least some of them considering they were half of the tests.

We are talking about tests with fixed wordings.
Click to expand...
Poor sampling, poor polling.

How did she know who was homosexual if there was no way others could tell? Sounds like biased sampling or questioning to me. It wasn’t double blind, was it?
 
InJesusItrust said:
Poor sampling, poor polling.

How did she know who was homosexual if there was no way others could tell? Sounds like biased sampling or questioning to me. It wasn’t double blind, was it?
Click to expand...
**case studies indicate an observation in need of further investigation however as we know this led to a vote not study and the subsequent demise of the credibility of the APA. **
Click to expand...
 
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...
the natural moral law according to the theocrats, of course, which ignores the real question of how the state will enforce laws that are broken in the privacy of the bedroom without peeping toms, snitches, bedroom raids, unimaginable evidence gathering, snoop cameras and mics.

sodomy bothers you that much? if you don’t care about overreaction I could end all crime in a year or so by shooting every convict.

F/
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Yeah, a major piece of evidence, alright.

The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality

To answer the OP, however, I would not want to re-criminalize homosexual acts. What I object to is the sweep from out of the closet of private behavior to the altar that involves public policy, institution of SS"M" as law.

,
Click to expand...
I know all the issues with that study.
Regular_Atheist said:
Maybe we should employ the same method as your father does when he catches you smoking. Y’know, he makes you smoke the entire packet of cigarettes until you’re sick of them? Put two homosexuals in a room, and get them to have sex with each other until they get sick of it. That should set them straight, both in a literal sense and figuratively.
Click to expand...
Too funny.
Forkfoot said:
That’s called jail. A number of posters here already spoke in favor of that method.
Click to expand...
What would you do if after you incarcerated heterosexual sodomites too you realize society doesn’t work when a tenth of it is in prison?
InJesusItrust said:
Poor sampling, poor polling.

How did she know who was homosexual if there was no way others could tell? Sounds like biased sampling or questioning to me. It wasn’t double blind, was it?
Click to expand...
If homosexuality is objectively a mental illness then it should show up on objective mental illness tests. If the claim is that all homosexuals are mentally ill and you prove that some aren’t then you have proven their statement is untrue.
 
If there is a flaw in the sampling methodology it proves nothing.
 
So anyways, to recap, jail leads to more sodomy, fines place undue hardship on the poor and don’t deter the rich, torture and public flagellation are immoral, and the death penalty is too extreme.

Hmm…

Maybe, just maybe, the right course of action has less to do with using force to impose our worldview about morality on others, and more to do with love?
 
Fairwinds said:
the natural moral law according to the theocrats, of course, which ignores the real question of how the state will enforce laws that are broken in the privacy of the bedroom without peeping toms, snitches, bedroom raids, unimaginable evidence gathering, snoop cameras and mics.

sodomy bothers you that much? if you don’t care about overreaction I could end all crime in a year or so by shooting every convict.

F/
Click to expand...
We have had anti sodomy laws for decades and no theocracy so I have no idea why you conclude that?
 
Forkfoot said:
So anyways, to recap, jail leads to more sodomy, fines place undue hardship on the poor and don’t deter the rich, torture and public flagellation are immoral, and the death penalty is too extreme.

Hmm…

Maybe, just maybe, the right course of action has less to do with using force to impose our worldview about morality on others, and more to do with love?
Click to expand...
Nothing unloving about anti sodomy laws. There is something unloving about relativism.
 
Forkfoot said:
I guarantee there’d be no shortage of selfless, pious souls willing to peep in windows and monitor hidden camera footage to help uphold the moral fabric of society.
Click to expand...
I am sure there is no shortage of pro sodomy advocates here who all claim to be “loving” while endorsing vice.
 
InJesusItrust said:
If there is a flaw in the sampling methodology it proves nothing.
Click to expand...
If someone claimed that all priests were child molesters and I found a bunch that were not child molesters that would be a flaw in the sampling methodology for a study, but it would not detract from the fact that their claim was proven wrong.
fix said:
I am sure there is no shortage of pro sodomy advocates here who all claim to be “loving” while endorsing vice.
Click to expand...
There are also a lot of heterosexuals sodomites who don’t think they are doing anything wrong because it is in a marriage.
 
fix said:
Nothing unloving about anti sodomy laws.
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that using force to impose a religious worldview upon those who do not share it cannot possibly be rooted in love. Society gives rise to laws based on the type of society the people want to live in. If people don’t share your religious worldview, using force to compel them into obedience would be as immoral as forcing them to baptize their children and convert to christianity. That’s not love, man. didn’doesn’t move like that; the mind of man does.
 
Forkfoot said:
I am of the opinion that using force to impose a religious worldview upon those who do not share it cannot possibly be rooted in love.
Click to expand...
This is not about a religious worldview. This is about a basic moral truth.
Society gives rise to laws based on the type of society the people want to live in. If people don’t share your religious worldview, using force to compel them into obedience would be as immoral as forcing them to baptize their children and convert to christianity. That’s not love, man. didn’doesn’t move like that; the mind of man does.
Click to expand...
This is very confused. There is no comparison between forced baptism and anti sodomy laws. There is no love in approving of evil.
 
fix said:
This is not about a religious worldview. This is about a basic moral truth.
Click to expand...
I think that’s absurd, but whatever you want to call it, it’s clearly a belief. A belief that other citizens of society don’t subscribe to. Using force to impose your belief that sodomy goes against some “basic moral truth” on those who don’t share that belief would in my view be a terrible and immoral abuse of power.
 
Forkfoot said:
I think that’s absurd, but whatever you want to call it, it’s clearly a belief. A belief that other citizens of society don’t subscribe to. Using force to impose your belief that sodomy goes against some “basic moral truth” on those who don’t share that belief would in my view be a terrible and immoral abuse of power.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the usual moral relativism. No one would have even tried such “reasoning” up until about 5 minutes ago in terms of history.
 
fix said:
We have had anti sodomy laws for decades and no theocracy so I have no idea why you conclude that?
Click to expand...
because someone wants to enforce them, unlike now, where, if they still exist, aren’t enforced at all.

if they’re “natural laws”, there no reason for selective enforcement anymore, as an added charge to rape, as part of an ant-gay crackdown or just because cops and prosecutors like to pile on charges. this now applies to everyone, everywhere.

if natural law barring sodomy is, then why not use SWAT teams to break into bedrooms and root out sodomites even if they’re married couples? this is serious!
 
buffalo said:
How so?
Click to expand...
When its consenting adults its not violating anybodie’s rights. For it to be consitutional someone’s rights need to be violated, and the needs to be a section or amendment that says you can make a law like that. Such a law could be argued to violate freedom of association.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top