Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Skavau]

Secular democracy is undemocratic and thus oxymoronic. What you want (secular democracy) is undemocratic. What you support (secular democracy) is undemocratic.

[citation needed]

I see you didn't bother to address anything I actually said. All you did was repeat your silly claim about secular democracy.

Seriously. You're passing up Arthur Brainless in the "Who's the Biggest Bonehead" contest. This is reaching ridiculous levels of thick headedness. I'm actually a little amazed.

Yeah whatever, grow up.

 

[MaryContrary]

I see you didn't bother to address anything I actually said. All you did was repeat your silly claim about secular democracy.

:doh:

If you still don't get it, then I can't help you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Okay. Chill. Sheesh.

It was an erroneous assumption on my part, I admit. I assumed since you jumped to argue that point that you disagreed with it. And with your apparent reluctance to state clearly otherwise I failed to recognize the correction.

If it's really driving you that far up the wall, then I do sincerely apologize. Not that I mind driving you up the wall over something stupid that you believe, but since this isn't necessarily one of those things, then please accept my full and complete retraction.

Retraction accepted. Thanks. :cheers:

Okay...aren't you the one always whining about me supposedly getting all emotional and ranting all the time? :squint:

No, but I point it out! And I had good reason to call you on it, the same as you would have if I'd assumed something about yourself with no foundation. :e4e:

I am. I'm advocating for it right here on this forum. And I do so in person out here in the real world when I discuss this topic with other people. That's not enough for you? Well...guess what? I don't have to care. :idunno:

Well to be honest that really just amounts to musing doesn't it. You're not going to change things

I think you're just getting a handle of the fact that this topic makes you hysterical and paranoid. Like believing anyone who'd advocate for this must be hunkering down in a bunker somewhere planning to overthrow the government.

What? Why would I have any reason to be hysterical or paranoid? As deflections go Mary that's actually one of your lamest so far. I'm confident enough that whatever the advocates of this do it'd have zero chance of getting passed as law. That's my position and has been throughout. Heck, if you're going to insult Mary at least make them relevant :thumb:

You're actually having trouble with even that concept? There's a chance of any law you can imagine being passed in a democracy. All that's required is enough people wanting it to be. Or enough people just not caring if it is or not.

Nope. I think you're being stubbornly unrealistic but that's your call, hence 'whatever'.

And you missed the other half of that sentence, where I again reminded you that it's not relevant to my decision to advocate for it here.

Which essentially comes down to 'musing' about it here.

Dude. Internet debate forum.

Really? Oh wow, so it is! :thumb:

Most of what I do in real life wouldn't garner much debate. I delivered groceries to old people today out of the back of a pickup truck. How'd that go over, do you think? Reckon many folks would want to argue about that? Not to mention most of what I do that might make for good debate, I'm just not willing to share with people like you in the room.

All the same I think aSeattleConservative would be disappointed in you for it being that far down the list...:chuckle: And it's not just to do with what constitutes a 'debate'. People debate strongly about certain issues and do something concrete about it away from a forum. At least if it's important enough they do...:think:

Shrug.

Then you really don't care much then. Ah well.

Stop being such a bigot.

Ok. The irony of this is starting to get more than a little amusing now.

:rotfl:

The brainwashed PC masses are people like you, who are incapable of comprehending a wide variety of points long enough to even argue them accurately. Most folks who disagree with me are able to keep the concepts we're debating in mind enough to actually argue them. You're in the minority, doofus.

Even if I were unable to comprehend a 'wide variety of points' that would have no direct bearing on either being brainwashed or PC. Seriously Mary. You need to work on the relevance of your insults, get some credible creativity going on ya know? This is just third rate playground stuff.

:blabla: So which is it? Are you wondering what it means or have you determined it's just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric?

Some examples of "confusing the issue" for you to fail to comprehend:

* Convincing idiots like you that homosexuals are "born that way", to the degree that you're forced to accept heterosexuals are "born that way" just to avoid the obvious contradiction.
* Convincing idiots like you that all the self-destructive behaviors associated with homosexuality are the result of how very sad it is that some people don't accept homosexuality.
* Convincing idiots like you that a homosexual who displays a heterosexual attraction was never a homosexual in the first place. Despite the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals have had, are having or will sooner or later have, heterosexual relationships and attractions.

I could go on but that's probably enough to make your head explode right there.

And of course this is all backed up with objective and irrefutable evidence right? First off you're making yet more unfounded assumptions. I don't think that cases of self destructive behaviours amongst gay people are all or even mostly linked to people not accepting their homosexuality, so nice strawman going there. It sure doesn't help when homophobic bigots stick their oar in in certain cases but if a gay does drugs it's likely for similar reasons a straight does them overall.

I know people who've claimed they've been gay since children, never having an attraction to the opposite sex, no abuse involved or the typical 'reasoning' that renders someone homosexual but simply ingrained. Subjective? Yes, but I've no axe to grind or an agenda to push so I fail to see any reason why I should write off their own testimony as false simply because it doesn't tie in with what you take as 'truth'.

If you seriously think that the 'vast majority' of homosexuals have had, or will have heterosexual attractions then the only idiot on display is you. I would ask you to provide back up for that premise but I know where that leads.....

So no. What you provided barely made my head itch never mind explode. Michael Ironside is evidently out of range.....lain:

Show me where I'm not objective. I can show you where you aren't...
For example.

The ^ for a start.

It's already happening. The APA has pulled back from teetering on the brink of accepting homosexuals are born with a fixed sexual orientation and has actually backed off the position that sexual orientation is even immutable as well. It's becoming more widely recognized by the public that homosexuals can and do change orientation or at least are capable of healthy heterosexual relationships, where that was unthinkable even a few years ago. Violence in lesbian relationships is beginning to garner serious research, whereas even recognize such has been taboo up until now.

Have they flat out stated that all homosexuals 'develop' their orientation? Is there corroborating evidence which proves that homosexuality is never genetic? I've not seen it. Where do you get the notion that violence in any relationship has been a taboo subject? Over here it isn't! Have you researched the counter claims? If it was actually proven that homosexuality isn't genetic in any instance then I'd accept it Mary. So far I'm not seeing it.

I could go on and on. Just about every hard line position has wavered and collapsed in the last ten or so years, allowing serious research and reassessment in many areas where there was no such before. Because homosexuals who've come out of the lifestyle have stood strong and pushed through the scorn and denial that's been heaped on them during all that time. Enough that everyone who isn't a brainwashed sheeple has blinked and started taking a serious look at them and what they represent. Enough that even homosexuals have given up denying these things, leaving folks like you stuck on old talking points that aren't relevant anymore.

Oh puh leese. This is just another unsubstantiated rant. I suppose all those homosexuals and researchers who are at odds with your assessment are just blindly subjective and 'in denial' right? You're that arrogant as to be the mouthpiece for the homosexual community in general? I wish I could say I was surprised....

I'll go ahead and predict that in about five years...maybe less...if you're still around...you'll probably be here pretending you never believed any of that stuff. Because there won't be anyone telling you to believe it.

Well lets pick this up in five years then if we're both still around. I predict your prediction is a load of bunk. But we'll have to wait and see....

That'll change when how destructive it is becomes apparent to a few more people.

Um, ya, of course it will Mary. How about a wager? I predict that is also a load of bunk. People value their freedom of privacy too much and the goings on between consentual adults has long since concerned anyone but the busybody. However, in five years, if things have changed then I'll concede you're right. $10?

Yawn.

Have a coffee. :e4e:

Then you have an odd standard of "success", don't you?
Why? If it's as destructive as I've been saying it is, then that's not a good thing. A relatively large portion of the populace (7.7% to 13.95% for men and 4% to 7.5% for women with the averages being 9.37% for men and 4.87% for women) exhibiting drastically higher morbidity rates overall, drastically higher risk behavior for disease (and not just AIDS, doofus, so spare me), mental disorders of all sorts, suicide, alcohol/drug abuse, criminal behavior, promiscuity, domestic violence, etc, etc, etc.

Nope. I just don't buy a set of stats as being 'proof'. I've read that the highest risk of suicides is among 25 -35 year old white collar men. That's the 'beauty' of stats. Drug and alcohol abuse is so rampant that singling any group out as 'more prone' is bordering on the absurd. Try living on a council estate and see who doesn't drink and do drugs.

No government intervention. And you say that's a good thing. I'd say that's debatable. When I look at the numbers there I would wonder why in the world the government isn't intervening there, if I didn't already know it's because of people like you.

Well, me and the rest of the 'sheeple' anyway. How audacious to support the freedom and liberty to live life as long as it doesn't violate others. The horror. lain:

 

[WizardofOz]

Secular democracy is undemocratic and thus oxymoronic. What you want (secular democracy) is undemocratic. What you support (secular democracy) is undemocratic.

Seriously. You're passing up Arthur Brainless in the "Who's the Biggest Bonehead" contest. This is reaching ridiculous levels of thick headedness. I'm actually a little amazed.

I am also a little amazed; amazed that you neither know how to define secular nor democracy yet are calling others boneheads.

If a group of kids vote on who should be class president without bringing up religion or God, was the process then somehow undemocratic? You clearly have not thought this one through (your M.O., really).

Rant on

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not that you'll likely care much Mary but unfortunately my laptop decided to go screwy on me and I accidentally hit 'send' before finishing my post. I'll edit it. :chuckle:

 

[Atheist PhD]

I say we execute gays when it becomes legal to execute evangelicals, they can both be whinny and flamboyant, in my opinion. HUMOR, I actually love gay people, not so much the evangelicals though.

 

[Ktoyou]

I say we execute gays when it becomes legal to execute evangelicals, they can both be whinny and flamboyant, in my opinion. HUMOR, I actually love gay people, not so much the evangelicals though.

Are you here to monkey around?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Secular democracy is undemocratic and thus oxymoronic. What you want (secular democracy) is undemocratic. What you support (secular democracy) is undemocratic.

Seriously. You're passing up Arthur Brainless in the "Who's the Biggest Bonehead" contest. This is reaching ridiculous levels of thick headedness. I'm actually a little amazed.

You do realize there's little point in trying to make a joke of a username that's already a joke right? Oh well. As you were. :chuckle:

 

[BabyChristian]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

If so, why so? If not, why not?

I keep saying it and I'll say it again, the propensity to be a homosexual to me is similar to being an alcoholic.

There's always hope and I think my being drunk is a sin as is homosexuality but I don't think one is worse than the other.

Of course Muslims probably don't agree.

 

[Ktoyou]

I keep saying it and I'll say it again, the propensity to be a homosexual to me is similar to being an alcoholic.

There's always hope and I think my being drunk is a sin as is homosexuality but I don't think one is worse than the other.

Of course Muslims probably don't agree.

BC, they are different. let's look and see.

What is the first hurdle for dealing with being an alcoholic? You know it is admitting to being an alcoholic and becoming sober. see my point?

Now as to sin; drinking is not sinful, yet drunkenness is sinful. Once all drinking is drunkenness, then drinking is sinful and one must abstain.

 

[Atheist PhD]

Are you here to monkey around?

Monkey around??? Why are you making some kind of offer??? Seriously, there is NOTHING wrong with humor and addressing issues with humor. Come on anyone who suggests that we execute someone because of their sexuality is a bit loose, don't you think?

 

[BabyChristian]

BC, they are different. let's look and see.

What is the first hurdle for dealing with being an alcoholic? You know it is admitting to being an alcoholic and becoming sober. see my point?

Now as to sin; drinking is not sinful, yet drunkenness is sinful. Once all drinking is drunkenness, then drinking is sinful and one must abstain.

I disagree, my church thinks that since Christians are under a microscope, it's better not to imbibe at all in alcohol.

Admitting I was an alcoholic was the first step, no doubt, then doing something about it. But I do NOT HAVE to drink alcohol in life like I do have to eat food.

I see sex more similarly to eating food than to drinking alcohol...........Seems to me most people need sex to have a happy life and the same is not true about booze.

Asking someone to NOT EVER HAVE SEX is akin to Catholic clergy to never have sex, which has proven to be a failure.

Many people do not know they're going to be a drunk until they first drink. If they never tried it, as my father didn't have his first drink until he was 42 years of age, he never would have known his craving. He died right in front of me on my living room floor at the age of 65 in 1980 from a cardiac arrest but probably would have lived a very long life since his brothers lived to be in their 90s.

The problem with homosexuality is it's now become a fad and they partake in parades with pride of their inordinate behavior.

I have said before, to me, that's like a bunch of drunks having a staggering parade and celebrating their pride in being drunks. To me it's an aberration, painful to many and is nothing to be celebrated.

 

[Ktoyou]

I disagree, my church thinks that since Christians are under a microscope, it's better not to imbibe at all in alcohol.

Admitting I was an alcoholic was the first step, no doubt, then doing something about it. But I do NOT HAVE to drink alcohol in life like I do have to eat food.

I see sex more similarly to eating food than to drinking alcohol...........Seems to me most people need sex to have a happy life and the same is not true about booze.

Asking someone to NOT EVER HAVE SEX is akin to Catholic clergy to never have sex, which has proven to be a failure.

Many people do not know they're going to be a drunk until they first drink. If they never tried it, as my father didn't have his first drink until he was 42 years of age, he never would have known his craving. He died right in front of me on my living room floor at the age of 65 but probably would have lived a very long life since his brothers lived to be in their 90s.

The problem with homosexuality is it's now become a fad and they partake in parades with pride of their inordinate behavior.

I have said before, to me, that's like a bunch of drunks having a staggering parade and celebrating their pride in being drunks. To me it's an aberration, painful to many and is nothing to be celebrated.

We may differ on the drinking issue. My point is when homosexuals admit they are such, it does not signify abstinence, quite the opposite.

 

[Ktoyou]

Monkey around??? Why are you making some kind of offer??? Seriously, there is NOTHING wrong with humor and addressing issues with humor. Come on anyone who suggests that we execute someone because of their sexuality is a bit loose, don't you think?

You cannot blame me for checking you out, as I do not like monkey business and when people do monkey around on TOL, it causes me to wonder if he or she just might be a little cuckoo bird. You do see my point, surly you see my intention is to know who is up to monkey business and who is just attempting to communicate ideas with humour.:chew:

 

[Town Heretic]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

I say no. You give that to them and they're going to want to use it at some point. I mean, who leaves that sort of thing in the box? :think: And you might be out in your front yard mowing the grass in your khaki shorts, having forgotten to remove those stunning black socks and BAM, you're dead. Killed by a fashion faux pas. lain:

 

[BabyChristian]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

I say no. You give that to them and they're going to want to use it at some point. I mean, who leaves that sort of thing in the box? :think: And you might be out in your front yard mowing the grass in your khaki shorts, having forgotten to remove those stunning black socks and BAM, you're dead. Killed by a fashion faux pas. lain:

:chuckle: LOVED YOUR ANSWER


I think this question may have been more appropriately asked from Muslims not Christians. We have grace and many chances, Muslims don't think so in their own beliefs.

 

[Atheist PhD]

You cannot blame me for checking you out, as I do not like monkey business and when people do monkey around on TOL, it causes me to wonder if he or she just might be a little cuckoo bird. You do see my point, surly you see my intention is to know who is up to monkey business and who is just attempting to communicate ideas with humour.:chew:

Actually I don't really see your point, I mean what if you determined I was a little cuckoo bird, do you have a secret army that'll come to Michigan and "rub me out" or would you just ignore me.

I guess if you are attempting to determine if I am serious in having a discussion or just coming on to make trouble, so you can avoid me, then I can see that. And, I never blame a woman for "checking me out" I'm a hunk, and I don't have a monkey, or a business.

I'm just an atheist who likes to see what the rest of the world is thinking, so my world view remains as open as possible. I know how theists feel about atheists, and I'm actually just fine with that, in fact, I prefer to know where someone stands before a kerfuffle breaks out.

Peace, and thanks for checking me out.... cute ain't I???:devil:

 

[BabyChristian]

I'm a hunk, and I don't have a monkey, or a business.

I'm just an atheist who likes to see what the rest of the world is thinking, so my world view remains as open as possible. I know how theists feel about atheists, and I'm actually just fine with that, in fact, I prefer to know where someone stands before a kerfuffle breaks out.

Peace, and thanks for checking me out.... cute ain't I???:devil:

Show us a picture of what a "hunk" looks like. Especially at 50 years of age. I used to be okay looking but at 54 I'm certainly no where near a hunk or hunkess.

For someone to claim they're a hunk tells me they're not with the real world, similarly to atheists thinking Christians aren't either.

Put some pics up of your hunkiness por favor so we can be the judge of your statements.

 

[Ktoyou]

Actually I don't really see your point, I mean what if you determined I was a little cuckoo bird, do you have a secret army that'll come to Michigan and "rub me out" or would you just ignore me.

That is a silly thing for an educated person to say. I do not believe you expect a reasonable response.

I guess if you are attempting to determine if I am serious in having a discussion or just coming on to make trouble, so you can avoid me, then I can see that.

Right

And, I never blame a woman for "checking me out" I'm a hunk, and I don't having a monkey, or a business.

Silly again, monkey business is behaviour, not have a monkey, you know this.

I'm just an atheist who likes to see what the rest of the world is thinking, so my world view remains as open as possible. I know how theists feel about atheists, and I'm actually just fine with that, in fact, I prefer to know where someone stands before a kerfuffle breaks out.

Peace, and thanks for checking me out.... cute ain't I???:devil:

I see that you are playing around a bit; not a problem for me. I have been where you are, most likely and now, years after, I see a bigger picture. You just might be a little cuckoo bird! We will see in time.

 

[Maegan Johnson]

While we are at it, perhaps we should allow women to shoot any man that makes an unwanted pass.

I would vote yes on this one first :duh: Or atleast the guys who dont take a hint