Never mind, seriously? You are attempting to equate the capability of murder to the capability of prostitution and pornography which cannot be done because one of them, murder, is the sole purpose of terminating someones life. So I'm asserting that your question is wrong and needs to be re-worded in order to support the claims your present because as of now they are an unsound argument. I'm all about listening to why, but if that simple premise is flawed from the beginning then it needs to be corrected before continuing. To answer your question though I need another answer. Do you equate want with intent?
I said never mind because your thinking on this point is so convoluted there's little possibility I can wade through all that, get you turned in the right direction and somehow manage not to completely lose the point I was trying to make in the first place in the process of it all. In short, not worth the effort. So never mind.
Not to mention it's not necessary anyway. You've already accepted the premise elsewhere in our discussion.
I know we're talking about sex, but could you also explain why I'm wrong and you're right, since you didn't include that with you're claim that I'm wrong.
We
can differentiate between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex. I'd provide examples of that principle but you'd just deny they're relevant since anything that isn't homosexuality isn't homosexuality, and so isn't comparable to it.
"Everything" is such a strong word. All I have to do to invalidate your assertion is find one thing that is not true to it. The first thing that comes to mind is the outlaw of unlawful murder, which is not outlawing something that someone wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness but rather outlawing the denying of the pursuit of life to the murdered individual. So could you explain how my argument is ridiculous?
Okay.
First, all murder is unlawful. That's what murder is. Unlawful killing. So "unlawful murder" is redundant.
Second, you said "
murder, which is not outlawing something that someone wants to do in the pursuit of their individual happiness but rather outlawing the denying of the pursuit of life to the murdered individual."
Do you really think the vast majority of murderers do so for some other reason than, you know,
wanting to?
This is the argument you presented against outlawing homosexual sex. Because those who do so do it in pursuit of their individual happiness and therefore, it shouldn't be outlawed. So by that reasoning murder should not be outlawed because people do that in the pursuit of their individual happiness.
Not that complicated, dude. And I'll point out this is the very premise you've argued so stubbornly
isn't valid when I presented it earlier. That the intent behind murder and homosexual sex are comparable for the purposes of arguing whether they should be outlawed.
I forgot to add that to my answer. Yes I do recognize that we can criminalize behavior that isn't directly harmful to others. I do not recognize that we punish with the death penalty in these cases. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that we in fact do?
Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
You already recognized espionage and treason, so I don't know why you're asking for this again.
Mary, when an individual "knowingly directs" or "advises" the killing of... they are directly connected to that murder. If the murder doesn't happen they can still be tried because they, with intent, attempted to have a person killed. They are still committing a crime to the effect of stealing the life from another individual.
So you agree they can be given the death penalty even if the murder never actually took place. So why are you still arguing this?
So, how does this relate to outlawing the homosexual act but not homosexuality itself? Simple.
If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 goes out
himself and commits murder, he can be charged with murder and sentenced to death.
If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 gives the order or even advises another to commit murder as described, he can be charged and sentenced to death.
If the "leader" illustrated in 18 U.S.C. 3591 says to those around him, "You know, I really wanna kill that guy. But I won't."...then he can't be charged with anything at all. Nor would anyone even think to try to.
So if the homosexual act (that's sex, btw) is outlawed someone (homo or no) can go out and have homosexual sex, be tried and executed.
If the homosexual act is outlawed and someone expresses the intent to go out and have homosexual sex, or advises someone to, or conspires to...then we still can't charge them with anything unless we've outlawed the intent, the advise or the conspiracy to commit. Then we could.
If the homosexual act is outlawed and someone who otherwise
wants to have homosexual sex but
doesn't...or even expresses the desire to but not the intent...no one would even think of charging them with anything. And there'd be nothing to charge them with if they did.
Are you getting this yet?
By your logic anyone who angerily says "I want that man dead" can be tried and sentenced to death, but we know this doesn't happen and that is exactly why your point is not true.
That hasn't anything whatsoever to do with the example you and I have been arguing this whole time (18 U.S.C. 3591). Nowhere have I suggested anything like this anywhere else either. And if you're seriously presenting this then it only stands as evidence that you're not following the conversation. :nono:
