Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

I love this stuff.

The more you people parade your extremism, the more you marginalize yourselves to the rest of society, and the more irrelevant you become in their minds.

Keep up the good work, fellas.

Of course these words aren't from the mind of an extremist, but someone who walks around handing out daisies and preaching love thy neighbor:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
Jesus didn't live in a time that had idealized freedom. But we are living in such a time. I believe it is right for human beings to destroy those among them who wish to subjugate their fellow human beings. I believe it's right to do so for the survival, well-being, and advancement of humanity.

This is not an ideal that anyone in Jesus time would have understood. That would be my exception to violence being reserved for responding to an otherwise unreasonable and imminent threat.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4021223&postcount=1699

 

[GFR7]

I understand, yes, that Fischer and LaBarbera are for recriminalization; but again, there is no compelling plan for enforcement. There was a time when cohabitation and adultery were illegal; but now with so much water under the bridge, who can envision them being recriminalized?

Even if a state were to recriminalize sodomy, the 2003 SCOTUS ruling of Lawrence v TX has protected sodomy at the federal and constitutional levels. Even though Bryan Fischer is pointing out that sodomy was always a felony in the US, he admits that from 1970 on, (post Stonewall, and with the help of the APA) the 49 states which had anti-sodomy statues began to fall like dominos.
With Lawrence v TX, this took a monumental leap forward and against States Rights.

I have long recognized and understood LaBarbera's stance but the feasibility is the glaring problem.
The reason things have gotten to the present juncture - with more and more Republicans and so-called social conservatives and Christians embracing same sex marriage - has its roots in the Lawrence v TX ruling, and Scalia in his dissent in 2003 predicted our present social moment.

 

[Nazaroo]

I understand, yes, that Fischer and LaBarbera are for recriminalization; but again, there is no compelling plan for enforcement. There was a time when cohabitation and adultery were illegal; but now with so much water under the bridge, who can envision them being recriminalized?

A great example of selective enforcement via profiling and personal bias.

Even if a state were to recriminalize sodomy, the 2003 SCOTUS ruling of Lawrence v TX has protected sodomy at the federal and constitutional levels. Even though Bryan Fischer is pointing out that sodomy was always a felony in the US, he admits that from 1970 on, (post Stonewall, and with the help of the APA) the 49 states which had anti-sodomy statues began to fall like dominos.
With Lawrence v TX, this took a monumental leap forward and against States Rights.

Not sure what this means.

I have long recognized and understood LaBarbera's stance but the feasibility is the glaring problem.
The reason things have gotten to the present juncture - with more and more Republicans and so-called social conservatives and Christians embracing same sex marriage - has its roots in the Lawrence v TX ruling, and Scalia in his dissent in 2003 predicted our present social moment.

Not sure why feasability of enforcement is really an issue for law selection.

Laws are not just for controlling people directly via
crude strong-arm tactics like police brutality and incarceration.

Just as sentences have multiple purposes, i.e.,

(1) punishment

(2) restitution

(3) deterrance

(4) ideological and religious purpose

(5) order

(6) balance, fairness, justice

(7) symbology for appearance and convention for communication


So do Laws themselves have multiple purposes,

(1) Enforcement of approved behaviours

(2) prevention of injury to individuals and society

(3) scientific and medical applications for health and quality of life

(4) EDUCATION, instruction and indoctrination

(5) Influence on progress and evolution of society and community infrastructures



A great example of an 'unenforceable' law is
the illegality of suicide.

Obviously strictly speaking, the law can never punish a person
guilty of suicide, and contents itself with punishing aiders, abettors,
inciters, and accesories of suicide.

But the law against suicide, even when allowing exceptions in
special or extreme cases, (see below),
does have a very important purpose, namely
providing necessary perspective to vulnerable people
who might potentially engage in this self-destructive and
potentially dangerous practice.

Reasons why Suicide is against the Law:

(1) Its an extreme and inappropriate solution to most problems.

(2) Its wrongly used as an attention-getting behaviour, or

(3) Its wrongly used to 'punish' or injure other parties,

(4) Its failure can nonetheless lead to horrific consequences
for both the individual and other related parties, including
society as a whole.

(5) It can unnecessarily add to the cost of law enforcement, medical care,
and order.

(6) It causes grief and significant emotional, mental and philosophical difficulties for those remaining behind.


Typical Exceptions:

(1) Extreme and intolerable pain and suffering

(2) Fatal prognosis in near future (cancer, organ failure)

(3) Extensive and irrepairable brain damage or fatal conditions

(4) Indefensible lack of any quality of life now or in the future

(5) Severe and dangerous and incurable mental conditions resulting in suffering and unhappiness, with no foreseable cure.

(6) Impossible or preposterous expense for sustaining of life, in a condition lacking any reasonable quality of life.

 

[GFR7]

In addition to what I posted above, there have been and continue to be legal changes which reflect the general opinion shift in the US. The days when someone could argue that they attacked a man because he was making a homosexual overture toward them and thus get reduced charges are also vanishing from jurisprudence:

California Bans 'Gay Panic' Defense

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/california_bans_gay_panic_defense

 

[GFR7]

Reasons why Suicide is against the Law:

(1) Its an extreme and inappropriate solution to most problems.

(2) Its wrongly used as an attention-getting behaviour, or

(3) Its wrongly used to 'punish' or injure other parties,

(4) Its failure can nonetheless lead to horrific consequences
for both the individual and other related parties, including
society as a whole.

(5) It can unnecessarily add to the cost of law enforcement, medical care,
and order.

(6) It causes grief and significant emotional, mental and philosophical difficulties for those remaining behind.

Right, even though people who unsuccessfully attempt suicide are not jailed (but taken to the hospital) the illegality of suicide still informs and influences society as a whole (if it were legal, one would have a more difficult time in dissuading suicidal persons).

 

[GFR7]

Also, in the past I had argues that the sanctioning of homosexuality by society would lead to a number of people acting on their bisexual leanings (which are normally repressed by cultural taboo):
Some might see this as just a joke, but it is in fact a reality for a significant minority of people:

Prince Harry: I might experiment with gay men if my relationship doesn’t work out

Prince Harry has said he might try relationships with men if he “changes his mind” about women, while on a night out with his current girlfriend.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/1...being-gay-if-my-relationship-doesnt-work-out/

 

[PureX]

This is not an ideal that anyone in Jesus time would have understood. That would be my exception to violence being reserved for responding to an otherwise unreasonable and imminent threat.

Except that you are presuming yourself to be the judge of what is an eminent threat to society and humanity, and then using that presumption to justify imposing your judgment on the rest of humanity. I was simply stating that as humanity has now internalized the conceptual ideal of personal freedom, IT has the right to defend that ideal for it's own sake, against those who would seek to deny it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by GFR7

Death by Grindr: Is It the New Killer App?

The murder of 25-year-old Dino Dizdarević is only the latest in a recent wave of violent crimes facilitated through the country's most popular gay hookup app.

This goes for ANY application where you meet up with random strangers, i.e., any online dating site, craigslist, etc. Of course sites like this one catering to the gay community have the danger of the existence of a large number of people who actively wish to inflict severe harm on them. It's unfortunately all too easy for a violent homophobe to go online, create an account on one of these sites pretending to be a gay man looking to hook up, chat with some guy online and lure him out somewhere under the guise of looking to hook up.

Obviously one needs to be careful with things like online dating, regardless of their orientation.

So those that are murdering homosexuals aren't "real homosexuals", just "homophobes" pretending that they enjoy engaging in homosex?

So the top six serial killers in the US (at the time Paul Cameron wrote his article) weren't "real homosexuals", but instead right wing homophobic bigots pretending to be homosexual so that they could inflict harm on "real homosexuals"?

Nice try Kitty.

Continuing with Paul Cameron's article on homosexuality and violence:

Deliberately Infecting Others During Sex

Gay activists often argue that what consenting adults do in private is nobody else’s business. However, gays have sex with so many different partners (5,6,7) that they increase their risk of getting or transmitting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Indeed, homosexuals are considerably more apt to get STDs than are non-homosexuals. (12)

Most who get an STD decide that they will do all in their power not to infect others. But others – an important minority – decide that they will make their partners suffer as much as they have. As Mirko Grmek (13) noted “every historian of disease knows that such an attitude of vengeance, or at least of recklessness, had contributed in other times to the spread of tuberculosis and syphilis.” Limited evidence suggests that, compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals are more apt to harm their sexual partners deliberately. The only comparative study (5,9) on this issue found that about 1% of male and female heterosexuals compared to 7% of gays and 3% of lesbians admitted to deliberately passing on STDs that they had acquired.

When the disease is AIDS, the personal and social costs of deliberate infection are exceptionally high. Several examples of homosexuals who were deliberate spreaders of AIDS have been documented, (13) but the most notorious is that of “patient zero,” the Canadian flight attendant who, until his death at age 32, shared his body and infection with 250 men every year. From the late 1970s through the early 1980s he was personally responsible for at least 40 of the first 248 American cases of AIDS and told public health officials in San Francisco it “was nobody else’s business but his own.”

There also appears to be a connection between the practice of violent sex and one’s willingness to deliberately infect someone else. Dividing our random national sample (7,12) into those with no interest in homosexual activity (non-H) and those with at least some homosexual interest (H) – and combining males and females – we found that 4.0% of the non-Hs vs 21.8% of those with at least some homosexual interest said that they had participated in sadomasochism (S/M); 7.8% of the non-Hs admitted to bondage (B/D) vs 27.5% of the Hs. Further, those who had engaged in violent sex of either type were twice as likely to have deliberately attempted to infect a partner than those without such violent experience (see Figure).

In 1992 three London STD clinics reported that almost half of their homosexual patients who knew they were infected with HIV had then gotten rectal gonorrhoea. (14) These homosexuals were not permitting their deadly infection to spoil their sexual fun. By 1993 over 100,000 U.S. gays had died of AIDS and tens of thousands had died of hepatitis B. Most of these had been infected, many deliberately or carelessly, by other homosexuals.

To be continued:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And now a few words from a sociopath:

I understand, yes, that Fischer and LaBarbera are for recriminalization; but again, there is no compelling plan for enforcement. There was a time when cohabitation and adultery were illegal; but now with so much water under the bridge, who can envision them being recriminalized?

i.e. righteous laws should be enforced only if it's 'practical'. Are you pro lifers who want to recriminalize abortion listening to this?

Even if a state were to recriminalize sodomy, the 2003 SCOTUS ruling of Lawrence v TX has protected sodomy at the federal and constitutional levels. Even though Bryan Fischer is pointing out that sodomy was always a felony in the US, he admits that from 1970 on, (post Stonewall, and with the help of the APA) the 49 states which had anti-sodomy statues began to fall like dominos.
With Lawrence v TX, this took a monumental leap forward and against States Rights.

I have long recognized and understood LaBarbera's stance but the feasibility is the glaring problem.
The reason things have gotten to the present juncture - with more and more Republicans and so-called social conservatives and Christians embracing same sex marriage - has its roots in the Lawrence v TX ruling, and Scalia in his dissent in 2003 predicted our present social moment.

I'll let Naz tear you apart, as he did with this excellent post:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4026023&postcount=1783

In the meantime GayForReal7: Shouldn't you be starting threads like this mocking Bryan Fischer and Peter LaBarbera for wanting homosexuality recriminalized?

Quote: Originally posted by GFR7

Pastor calling for amendment to Constitution : 10 yrs hard labor for gays.

This has GOT to be our very own a Culture Warrior having a hand in this;

am SO proud of him!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103846

 

[GFR7]

And now a few words from a sociopath:



i.e. righteous laws should be enforced only if it's 'practical'. Are you pro lifers who want to recriminalize abortion listening to this?



I'll let Naz tear you apart, as he did with this excellent post:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4026023&postcount=1783

In the meantime GayForReal7: Shouldn't you be starting threads like this mocking Bryan Fischer and Peter LaBarbera for wanting homosexuality recriminalized?

Quote: Originally posted by GFR7

Pastor calling for amendment to Constitution : 10 yrs hard labor for gays.

This has GOT to be our very own a Culture Warrior having a hand in this;

am SO proud of him!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103846

Well, I WAS kind of proud of ye :AMR1:

 

[GFR7]

Even if a state were to recriminalize sodomy, the 2003 SCOTUS ruling of Lawrence v TX has protected sodomy at the federal and constitutional levels. Even though Bryan Fischer is pointing out that sodomy was always a felony in the US, he admits that from 1970 on, (post Stonewall, and with the help of the APA) the 49 states which had anti-sodomy statues began to fall like dominos.
With Lawrence v TX, this took a monumental leap forward and against States Rights.

Not sure what this means.

Why not? How does a state enforce a law if the federal government has over-ridden them? As with abortion? :think:

 

[alwight]

Also, in the past I had argues that the sanctioning of homosexuality by society would lead to a number of people acting on their bisexual leanings (which are normally repressed by cultural taboo):
Some might see this as just a joke, but it is in fact a reality for a significant minority of people:

Prince Harry: I might experiment with gay men if my relationship doesn’t work out

Prince Harry has said he might try relationships with men if he “changes his mind” about women, while on a night out with his current girlfriend.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/1...being-gay-if-my-relationship-doesnt-work-out/

If I were Prince Harry then telling the press first what I'd do if women were ever no longer desirable to me would of course be my first consideration.

One calls it "winding the press up" one gathers.lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

In response to this post:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4025776&postcount=1781

Homosexualist PureX writes:

Except that you are presuming yourself to be the judge of what is an eminent threat to society and humanity, and then using that presumption to justify imposing your judgment on the rest of humanity.

The criminalization of homosexuality is biblically based, and based on that has 2,000 years of legal jurisprudence. While I'm honored that you think that this is my idea, God and men of faith beat me to it.

I was simply stating that as humanity has now internalized the conceptual ideal of personal freedom, IT has the right to defend that ideal for it's own sake, against those who would seek to deny it.

We've seen what your definition of "personal freedom" has brought to the United States and most of a once Judeo-Christianized western civilization:

Diease, misery and death.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If I were Prince Harry then telling the press first what I'd do if women were ever no longer desirable to me would of course be my first consideration.

One calls it "winding the press up" one gathers.lain:

Come on Al, your ally GayForReal7 is admitting that homosexuality should be recriminalized, but because it's not "feasible" at this time it shouldn't be (you know,that "too much water under the bridge" thing).

You're surely not going to let him slide on his homophobic bigotry are you?

 

[alwight]

Come on Al, your ally GayForReal7 is admitting that homosexuality should be recriminalized, but because it's not "feasible" at this time it shouldn't be (you know,that "too much water under the bridge" thing).

You're surely not going to let him slide on his homophobic bigotry are you?

You're right perhaps, but he does seem rather less of a Christian Taliban man than you are. :think:
Peaceful democratic change of this kind against gays just isn't going to happen, so imo it's mainly the head-case loony nutters we should all be more wary of aCW.
Give them half a chance and beheadings for being gay could well follow if they get frustrated enough.lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Come on Al, your ally GayForReal7 is admitting that homosexuality should be recriminalized, but because it's not "feasible" at this time it shouldn't be (you know,that "too much water under the bridge" thing).

You're surely not going to let him slide on his homophobic bigotry are you?

You're right perhaps, but he does seem rather less of a Christian Taliban man than you are. :think:
Peaceful democratic change of this kind against gays just isn't going to happen, so imo it's mainly the head-case loony nutters we should all be more wary of aCW.
Give them half a chance and beheadings for being gay could well follow if they get frustrated enough.lain:

GayForReal7 and I are both huge fans of Peter LaBarbera and Bryan Fischer, who he knows and has known for quite sometime that they both are for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

GayForReal7 and I are both in agreement that homosexuality MUST/SHOULD be recriminalized.

I'm wondering why you and other homosexualists don't attack him for his ideas? Could it be that you, like me, know that GayForReal7 is a sociopath having fun pretending to espouse Christian values on a Christian conservative website?

 

[GFR7]

If I were Prince Harry then telling the press first what I'd do if women were ever no longer desirable to me would of course be my first consideration.

One calls it "winding the press up" one gathers.lain:

One does wonder, "Whatever was he thinking?" :think:

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Come on Al, your ally GayForReal7 is admitting that homosexuality should be recriminalized, but because it's not "feasible" at this time it shouldn't be (you know,that "too much water under the bridge" thing).

You're surely not going to let him slide on his homophobic bigotry are you?




GayForReal7 and I are both huge fans of Peter LaBarbera and Bryan Fischer, who he knows and has known for quite sometime that they both are for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

GayForReal7 and I are both in agreement that homosexuality MUST/SHOULD be recriminalized.

I'm wondering why you and other homosexualists don't attack him for his ideas? Could it be that you, like me, know that GayForReal7 is a sociopath having fun pretending to espouse Christian values on a Christian conservative website?

Sorry, but it's lest complicated than that.

If you want to understand my perspective, I'll explain it - if you just want to take cheap shots at me, then you're not worth much.

I was not raised as a fundamentalist Christian, but as a Protestant with liberal and academic parents.

There are several Unitarians in the family and in my ancestry. My parents were really atheists in their thinking. So I come from an ultra- liberal background.

Since childhood, I alone was socially conservative, and my parents, siblings, and cousins were very annoyed by this (i was against pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, drugs, when they held super liberal views about these.

I told you I spent a lot of time in Provincetown.

Give me some credit for being socially conservative when there was ZERO reason for me to do so.

On my own, I followed LaBarbera et al.

If people here are not afraid of me, it's because they sniff out my super liberal background.

 

[alwight]

GayForReal7 and I are both huge fans of Peter LaBarbera and Bryan Fischer, who he knows and has known for quite sometime that they both are for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

GayForReal7 and I are both in agreement that homosexuality MUST/SHOULD be recriminalized.

I'm wondering why you and other homosexualists don't attack him for his ideas? Could it be that you, like me, know that GayForReal7 is a sociopath having fun pretending to espouse Christian values on a Christian conservative website?

Being I'm in the UK I don't always get all the low down on the likes of Porno Pete and his pals. So I have just been watching this video (which btw has one bad word in it iirc (rhymes with hit btw, so not that bad )). It's like a quick version of all your three threads here.

Porno Pete by Dan Savage

What do you think, fair and balanced?
Perhaps you actually are Porno Pete aCW?

 

[GFR7]

Dan Savage is a very intelligent liberal. He looks liberal, and he speaks and emotes like one.

I think LaBarbera is very handsome and almost regal looking. He is a very impressive person;
Savage is also in his own way, but not to the extent Michelangelo Signorile is.

Two completely different types of men; two purviews like two swords clashing.

I think Signorile is more serious looking and sounding, both.

@alwight: Just wondering. When you hear Savage and LaBarbera speak, do they have accents to your British ears?
I always wonder how the British experience American accents? :think: