Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

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 ?

 

Topic: Criminalisation of homosexual behaviour?

I have read all the twisted logic in favor of decriminalization, and it doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest. Yeah. I say go for it, and do it for the sake of the children.

Children need to be brought up in the knowledge that the deranged, perverted homosexual lifestyle is not normal nor acceptable. If they can see society's disapproval of such behavior in the legal statutes, then hopefully they will be persuaded and deterred from engaging in this self-destructive lifestyle.

I know that everything is moving in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of this decrepid way of life, but I am hoping that some future generation will do what we have failed to to do and get things back on course.

Roy

 

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.

No thanks, as much as I abhor these things, I'll prefer that the government stay out of our private homes and refrain from enacting such bans. I will continue to rely on scripture, not the law, for my moral compass. Others are welcome to do likewise, or not. </font>[/QUOTE]Wouldn't you regulate pornography? The government has the right to define marriage, to criminalize prostitution, to criminalize sex with minors, 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. That is not so. 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.

A man's home may be his castle but only within limits. It is not a license but a privilege. The state must punish evil.

 

Adultery and fornication have been against the law and may still be in Indiana--I am not sure.

However, we can draw the line in spite of your implications, Matt. There is such a thing as a sex crime and same-sex sodomy should be defined as such. I believe one of the lines against Clinton was that as Commander-in-Chief (or at least married to the Commander-in-Chief), Clinton was subject to military law which punishes adultery and fornication.

However, those are other subjects that have nothing to do with clear sex crimes such as molestation of a child, prostitution, rape, bestiality, pornography, and same-sex sex.

Also, it should be pointed out at this stage that Canada welcomes sodomites and there is nothing stopping American sodomites from going to Canada and thereby making the people of 2 nations happy. In fact, Canada will marry them just as if they were in Spain or Belgium or Holland or Hell.

 

We should not be lax about the legalization of same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior. If you take the attitude of letting the government legalize these behaviors, then the natural end point is the prosecution of those who disagree. Essentially we will not be able to speak out against it because it will be covered under the hate crimes laws. This means Christian schools can legally be shut down for teaching intolerance and bigotry, Christians can be sued because they disagree with the lifestlye. It can only lead to further degradation of society. It started with abortion, it will only end with people be allowed to do what they deem is right for them. Why make drugs illegal? One could easily argue that it my body nd I have a right to do what I want with it.

 

I quite concur with Timothy27.....

If gay marriage is legalized, how long until Bibles are considered hate literature ?

 

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.

 

Regulate? Yes. Make completely illegal? No. I have no problem with the way pornography is currrently regulated, and think it should be moreso regulated.

Mariage is a public policy issue. Even there, many Christians have continuously said that the state has no business regulating marriage for the church.

That's rather interesting. If I pay a person for sex, it's a crime. If I give them jewelry in exchange for sex, it's not. GO figure. Do't get me wrong, I'm not making a stand in favor of legalized prostitution, but the laws do seem a bit hypocritical.

A minor is not a consenting adult.

Animal regulations are a diffent "animal" (pardon the pun) from the issue of private behavior among consenting adults.

I'm saying that telling fully consenting adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own home (so long as they do not violate the liberties of others) is something the government should not be doing.

Again, a minor is not a consenting adult.

If you want to make all scripturally abominable acts illegal, you need to start by pointing the finger at ourself first. All of us have (and often do) commit acts that scripture calls abominable.

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.

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

 

Hello Matt.

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.

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.

 

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?


John, I believe you said something about the law being bad and creates more problems than it solves, I disagree, even though we are not bound by the law because of Christ does not mean we do not have to follow it. The law is there to help us see our sin and keep us from continuing. It is not to be thrown out the window and ignored,

 

Not sure what your point is, but for the record, the United States is not a democracy.

 

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.

 

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.

This is a positive action, showing that by legal action that we "sanction" it. I do have a problem with that. Now, if they want to go to a minister who will call them married, that is fine, but they do NOT get any recognition for being a couple as far a tax laws or any other marriage pentalties and benefits exist. That is between them and their god.

But, if you try to legislate what two people do together as consenting adults, that's when you can step over a thin line and become a legalistic society ruled by the whims of the majority. It could come down to making bald people illegal because they don't think they should show bare skin on their heads. I would then be in trouble.

 

You can criminalize Homosexuality, Fornication all you want but it want stop it. There actually is a valid argument for criminalizing Adultery because it is a violation of a Marriage contract. Ultimately however it is the Gospel that saves people from such sin.

It is true the Law is there to help us see our sin and preachers should preach the Law and the Gospel and Churches should practice discipline against members involved in it.

The problem with the Church looking to Government for help in this area shows a lack of faith in the Gospel to transform sinners lives.

 

You are right John and I apologize that I was not clear, I realized this when I read back through my posts. What people do in their home is private I agree with you there, but I differ in the legalizing of same-sex marriage. That is the angle I was writing from in my posts. Sorry to all, that I was not clear.

 

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.