Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Army of One]

I never once advocated putting homosexuals in jail.

The jail issue came up from some discussion about punishment in general, that stemed from people saying that they should be killed. If you are not one of the people that believes they should then why the heck are you arguing about it?

:bang:

 

[Jadespring]

No, I simply pointed out that your argument was fallacious. You have to do more to argue against the punishment of homosexuals than merely say, "well Hitler did it, so it must be wrong".

That was not my arguement at all. You have completely read it wrong.
I will try to explain. Sozo was making a statement about love equals killing.(in the context of homosexuals) He challenged me by asking if the only thing I would have advocated in WWII holocost was speaking Gospels to Hitler instead of going over and fighting them over it. He was reveling in the goodness of this action.

This was a ludricrous example to use in this instance.
I pointed out that perhaps he shouldn't be so happy about it because Hitler was doing exactly what he wanted to happen.....and yes sarcasm was laced through it, which yes I know gets lost on the page.
No where did I make the actual statement that we should determine what's right and wrong solely by what Hitler did.

Once again you have completely misinterpretted what I was stating. Please, aquire some comprehension skills. They can serve you well in life.

Look I don't think it's just my comprehension here. First off. The post wasn't in answer to yours so I think you must of missed the jist of what I was saying to Soza.

Your misinterpretation has led to my misinterpretation.

Talk like what? What in the world are you referring to?

Of course I don't. Stop jumping to idiotic conclusions, and stop trying to read things into my posts that aren't there.

Sorry but I suppose I'm making the assumption that you must be thinking in a similar manner to what Soza was thinking since this was the post that you were responding too.
If it's mistake I apologize. The two arguements seem to be getting muddled.

Well, maybe it's best that this conversation is over, since you can't seem to read my posts without inserting ideas into them that I never implied. I've presented easily understandable ideas in this thread, and yet you have inexplicably accused me of not only advocating the execution of all sinners, but also supporting genocide and the holocost.

Again. It's gotten muddled because of the cross responses I think. On both sides.
I am feeling the same way. I apologize and please take that with the sincerest of intentions. I find this topic in general quite troubling and do take it quite seriously. I will admit that I have had personel experience with a family memeber of mine who met with a serious and life altering beating by people who spouted much of the words that I have read here. (Not necessarily your posts) I tend to be quite quite outspoken.

If you wish to start over. I would be willing.

 

[Jadespring]

:bang:

Sorry but it's true.

 

[Jadespring]

Sorry to butt in but.....
Homosexuality is a choice.
The death penalty deters people inclined that way from making the wrong choice.
If you are against the death penalty for homos - you are against God and you - YES YOU - sente nce millions to a torturous DEATH. TORTUROUS!
So I guess either way YOU, Jadespring, are FOR the DEATH Penalty! It's just that way more people die under your misguided, liberal anti-Christian, nicer than God, policy for criminal punishment.:down:

So which is it? Are you with God on this, wanting to save lives and misery or are you against Him?

Oh goodness Crash. Your logic is infallible on this one. You got me. I am for the death penalty.

 

[CRASH]

That was not my I would be willing.

Do you agree then with my post?

 

[Jadespring]

Do you agree then with my post?

What do you think?

 

[CRASH]

What do you think?

I don't think so. If you do disagree, I would like to know where I've gone wrong.

 

[CRASH]

Consider God's Perspective

Consider God's Perspective

You may also want to consider this evidence.

The Biblical Evidence is also pretty convincing!

In Him,
CRASH

 

[Jadespring]

I don't think so. If you do disagree, I would like to know where I've gone wrong.

Crash to be honest I would be more then happy to discuss it with you but I just don't want to be yelled at, talked at instead of to and called names.
It makes it very difficult to actually discuss anything.

 

[CRASH]

Crash to be honest I would be more then happy to discuss it with you but I just don't want to be yelled at, talked at instead of to and called names.
It makes it very difficult to actually discuss anything.

I didn't mean to yell - just emphasis the point. I didn't call you names either but I did attack your ideas strongly. I will try to be nice :box: :crackup:

 

[Jadespring]

I didn't mean to yell - just emphesis the point. I didn't call you names either but I did attack your ideas strongly. I will try to be nice :box: :crackup:

Okay. Thanks for that it's appreciated.
I will try too.

Now I need to ask for your indulgence. It's really late here, my brain is dead and I don't want to muddle things up. I would also like to read those links you posted for the sake of keeping an open mind-such as with the DVD.

Would it be okay to continue tomorrow?

 

[CRASH]

Okay. Thanks for that it's appreciated.
I will try too.

Now I need to ask for your indulgence. It's really late here, my brain is dead and I don't want to muddle things up. I would also like to read those links you posted for the sake of keeping an open mind-such as with the DVD.

Would it be okay to continue tomorrow?

You bettcha! Good night!

 

[Sozo]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Are you kidding?

 

[shilohproject]

But the form of punishment you advocate is not loving or merciful either, so it's a bit nonsensical (and I dare say, hypocritical) for you to criticize me on those grounds.

Ask the people on death row what they think about it.:doh:

 

[kmoney]

ok, so I'm finally getting around to looking at some of these things. Earlier in this thread I raised the question about the fact that the verse in Lev. giving homosexuality the death penalty only talks about men; it seems to exclude women from it.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I then asked if any other sexual laws were only given from the male perspective or were both given. The main once I was looking at was adultery, incest, and beastality.

For beastality I found a few...

Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

and

Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
​

It spells out men and women. Lev. 18:23 is the verse immediately after the verse about homosexuality. Verse 23 spells out man and woman, verse 22 only mentions man when it very easily could have mentioned women also just as it did in verse 23 for beastality.

Next is adultery,

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
​

That says both the man and the woman must be put to death. It does read from the man's perspective, but in a way adultery is different because the act involves both the man and woman so it really doesn't need to have a separate verse saying "and the woman that...". It would be redundant.

Incest: Again it basically speaks from the man's perspective, but it is similar to adultery in that saying the same thing from the opposite side isn't necessary.

Rape:

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:​

Now for this one I don't believe there is any verse about a woman raping a man. Are we to believe that it's ok for a woman to rape a man? I would think not. Is the same to be applied to homosexuality? Maybe.

I also found this:

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.​

I looked up the words that were used for "whore" and "sodomite" and they're female temple prostitue and male temple prostitute respectively. One argument is that the verses in Lev. 18 and Lev. 20 that speak of homosexuality are talking about just this.

 

[shilohproject]

...the question about the fact that the verse in Lev. giving homosexuality the death penalty only talks about men....

I've often considered the implication of the observations you are making right now, and have no real answer. But, I wonder if the word which is translated "man" might actually be considered corporate in the sense that it includes all people in the Hebrew nation, much as we in English peoperly use the male pronoun for things. (Did everyone bring his book? not Did everyone bring their book.)

I'm no Hebrew speaking genious, so I just don't know.

 

[kmoney]

I've often considered the implication of the observations you are making right now, and have no real answer. But, I wonder if the word which is translated "man" might actually be considered corporate in the sense that it includes all people in the Hebrew nation, much as we in English peoperly use the male pronoun for things. (Did everyone bring his book? not Did everyone bring their book.)

I'm no Hebrew speaking genious, so I just don't know.

I don't believe that is the case. I think the verse talking about just men, not everyone. If "man" did mean "everyone" it would have to be worded completed different. Then what would "mankind" mean? Do you see what I'm getting at? If "man" meant everyone the verse would have to say something about being the same gender, which it doesn't, it just says "mandkind" and then "womankind". I don't think there is anyway to say this means everyone. If you do look at the hebrew it does seem to leave your interpretation open...

man - "'iysh"
1) man
a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
b) husband
c) human being, person (in contrast to God)
d) servant
e) mankind
f) champion
g) great man
2) whosoever
3) each (adjective)

mankind - "zakar"
1) male (of humans and animals)

woman - "'ishshah"
1) woman, wife, female
a) woman (opposite of man)
b) wife (woman married to a man)
c) female (of animals)
d) each, every (pronoun)

So the word for "man" seems to leave open the possibility that it's talking about everyone, but then the rest of the verse wouldn't make sense, at least I'm not seeing it.
To me it seems clear that it is talking about a man lying with a man. Not anyone lying with someone of the same gender.

 

[Army of One]

Ask the people on death row what they think about it.:doh:

Or you could ask the people serving Life without parole. I'm sure "loving" wouldn't be the adjective they chose to describe their sentence.

 

[TruthSeeker68]

Then wasn't it foolish of you to bring up the dichotomy?
If it doesn’t matter whether it is the act or the sickness, then what does it matter the distinction?

Your were trying to water down the issue. We weren't talking about executing people for what they think, but what they do. Just as we shouldn't charge people for being addicted to alcohol or drugs when they don't act on it. Being sick in the head, and acting on that sickness are two different things for sure, but no one is talking about that. It is a strawman.

I am not sure what you are getting at. At the beginning of this thread, DocHoliday asked lovemeorhateme if he is talking about executing someone "just for being gay" or for acting on their feelings. I think lovemeorhatem responded with something like "Just for being gay, OR acting on feelings". So, lovemeorhateme does not seem to care about the distinction. DocHoliday, does, however care about the distinction. I believe there is a distinction about "thinking about doing something" and "actually doing it". I don't believe a homosexual orientation (=sexual attraction to one's own gender, which is natural to the person experiencing that attraction), under any circumstance, is a sin that should be punished in any way. Also, I don't believe that homosexual behavior (in general) merits the death penalty (I did provide one exception).

Jesus didn’t declare all foods clean to Jews. Jesus wasn’t advocating people to abandon the mosaic law here. There is no statement here that people should begin eating pork.

Mark 7:19 (NIV) - ...(In saying this, Jesus declared ALL foods clean "clean"). It's clear that Jesus abolished the Bible's food laws, including the prohibition against eating pork. He used "common sense" to prove that what's on the outside does not matter when judging a person's spirit.

However, he does point out that the command to abstain from certain foods is really symbolic. I would agree that symbolic commands should not be kept today or enforced today. However “do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not commit homosexuality” are moral truths and should be kept as crimes.

Does Scripture tell us how to distinguish ceremonial law (for Israel) from moral law (for all people everywhere)? What about the Sabbath rule in the Ten Commandments? Would you say that is a ceremonial law while all others are moral laws? Exodus 20:8-10, Exodus 34:21 and Exodus 35:6 clearly state that NO WORK is to be done on the Sabbath. Numbers 15:32-26 talks about a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath. Moses said to stone him. Do you think Jesus would instruct people to do the same thing while He was around??? Jesus' disciples clearly acted "unlawfully" when they plucked heads of grain and started eating them. Unlike many so-called Christians today, Jesus used compassion to evaluate Biblical rules in the light of human need and suffering. There are gays and lesbians who wish to honor God by living for Him in committed relationships. I believe they (at least gay males) are included in the "born eunuchs" category that Jesus talked about. These are not the people talked about in Romans who were idolatrous and left their natural orientation to do whatever pleases them. Believe me, there are naturally straight people who seek other pleasures. These are not GAY people! When you have to choose between compassion and strictly following a rule, use COMPASSION! We have a great example - Jesus Christ!

 

[Skeptic]

No one should be given the death penalty.