American Religious Nutcases Responsible For Homosexuals Being Executed?

Around 85% of Ugandan's are Christian, according to a 2002 survey...

Most being Catholic.

Some more "Harsh" Evangelicals would claim this means they aren't Christian at all;)

You're assuming that all of that money even goes to the people who need it...

Well, it may not be 'tis true. I was just suggesting that the monetary amount in itself is not too little to make a difference.

I wasn't suggesting the money, even if properly distributed, would put anyone in the lap of luxury, but it could help a good amount of people not starve, again, if properly distributed.

Well, of course, we can't agree with everything our government does. Of course I wish America had hate speech laws, but I can't expect my country to conform exactly to my views, I can only do my part to try to shape my country according to my views.

Saying "I think very specific kinds of speech are hateful and should not be allowed" is taken a bit differently than saying "I don't like free speech" even though I might argue they may not be too different.

In any case, we need to define what's "Hateful."

There's a bit of a sliding scale that could perhaps be introduced:

1. Having absolutely no problem with gay people, the gay lifestyle, exc.

2. Having a personal problem with homosexuality because of religion, but keeping it to yourself.

3. Being willing to call homosexuality a sin if asked, but doesn't support any legal penalties of homosexuality.

4. Wants to allow homosexuality, but wants to indirectly tax it by not wanting to provide any marriage/civil union benefits, and open about such, but not advocating legal punishment.

5. Wanting theoretical laws against sodomy, but not enforcing them, (See Texas a decade ago.)

6. Wanting slightly more harsh laws against homosexuality (The equivalent of, say, speeding)

7. Stating that homosexual acts should be a misdemeanor.

8. Stating that homosexual acts should be a felony.

9. Stating that homosexuals deserve life in prison or execution (TBH I don't see a real practical difference, it more depends on whether you support the DP once you get to this point.)

10. Threatening homosexuals directly (Rather than saying you want the government to execute them, saying you plan to attack them personally)

11. Actually carrying out such threats against homosexuals.

While everyone would ban #11 and the majority would ban #10, the first 9 are all allowed in the US, and you seem to disagree with it. But where do you draw the line? Would you consider more mild attacks against the gay lifestyle (Somewhere between 4-7) to be hateful as well, or only the more extreme ones? Do you consider any and all criticism of homosexuality to be hate speech? We cant really debate this topic until we define our terms. Where is the line for "Hate speech" drawn?
 
Are you for the first 2-9, Dommy?
 
Are you for the first 9, Dommy?

I'm for allowing someone to say the first 9, so I draw the line of legality between 9 and 10. But I don't actually support the first 9.

I'm actually somewhere between #3 and #4 (I don't support the term marriage being used for gays, but I think they should be allowed to have basically the same legal benefits.)

I'd definitely consider saying #8 or 9 would be hateful, 7 would be hateful in most contexts, and 6 could be hateful in some contexts. But I don't personally believe hate speech should be illegal, but only direct threats.

Even those who support hate speech bans frequently draw a line between what they consider hate and what they will ban. A LOT of gay people support hate speech bans (I want to say right now I SERIOUSLY admire the gay people who don't support such bans) and a lot of gay people would draw the line for hateful fairly early on that list (4 or earlier) but few would actually lock someone up or fine them for saying they don't agree with gay marriage, or heck, even for supporting the Texas Sodomy Law.

@Dreadnought- True. Though I suppose that would be 3.5, or where I am.

That said, the purpose of this isn't to allow everyone to neatly put themselves on a number, its to actually determine where you draw the line for "Hateful."

And when you're talking about the desire to EXECUTE gay people, I think the difference between gay marriage and gay civil unions quite pales in comparison. I'm quite opposed to gay marriage, but I'd rather them be allowed to marry than them be executed.
 
Saying "I think very specific kinds of speech are hateful and should not be allowed" is taken a bit differently than saying "I don't like free speech" even though I might argue they may not be too different.

The latter includes the former.

In any case, we need to define what's "Hateful."

I disagree, but I consent to your wishes.

5. Wanting theoretical laws against sodomy, but not enforcing them, (See Texas a decade ago.)

6. Wanting slightly more harsh laws against homosexuality (The equivalent of, say, speeding)

7. Stating that homosexual acts should be a misdemeanor.

8. Stating that homosexual acts should be a felony.

9. Stating that homosexuals deserve life in prison or execution (TBH I don't see a real practical difference, it more depends on whether you support the DP once you get to this point.)

10. Threatening homosexuals directly (Rather than saying you want the government to execute them, saying you plan to attack them personally)

11. Actually carrying out such threats against homosexuals.

Would include everything above.
 
The Sodomy Laws were homophobic in nature, so yes.
 
Homosexuality is murder. Spilling your seed is killing it.

:lol:

Sperm isn't a human life, life is only created at conception.

The Sodomy Laws were homophobic in nature, so yes.

So if I post the following:

"I think to make a moral statement, sodomy laws should be on the books. They shouldn't be enforced, but they should be on the books to make a point that homosexuality is not OK" then I should get arrested?

(Note: I don't actually endorse the thing I just said above me, but to say I should go to jail if I did is frankly quite ridiculous.)
 
I don't give a damn if they were enforced or not, they're still bloody wrong.
 
I don't give a damn if they were enforced or not, they're still bloody wrong.

You are now arguing with STRAW. I did not say I agreed with the laws, in fact I outright stated I disagreed with them. I am questioning that supporting such laws should be considered HATEFUL and subject to arrest.

I don't support any laws against homosexuality besides Biblical and moral law. In fact, I agree with the Supreme Court decision regarding it. But saying something that I deem wrong I don't consider reason to arrest someone.

Argue with my point, not with extrapolations on my point which are not only assumed, but that I outright rejected. You seem to be making the jump that since I don't want to make certain comments illegal I wish to endorse those comments. That's DEFINITELY not true.
 
"Moral" law? Care to expand, it sounds entirely vague and useless.
 
"Moral" law? Care to expand, it sounds entirely vague and useless.

Well, by "Moral Law" I merely mean that its wrong and against God's law, but that the secular authorities shouldn't stop anyone from doing it.

And speaking of which, can you state where you draw the line between "I merely disagree with those views" and "Hateful" on my 11 number chart?

Obviously that depends. If that's their only crime, no, they should not be arrested, rather they should be fined if they spoke about it.

Wouldn't context have to be considerd as well? I mean, wouldn't there be a bit of a difference if I'm having a private conversation with some friends as opposed to me deliberately trying to offend a gay person by saying it?


EDIT: Or also, if the person in question was pressing them for their views VS whether they were trying to rub it in.

I think all of these things would have to play a factor...
 
gods' law is not inherently moral, unless you think killing gay men because they lie with each other is "moral", or killing people because they wear two different types of cloth, is "moral".

4-11, bordering on 3.
 
Wouldn't context have to be considerd as well? I mean, wouldn't there be a bit of a difference if I'm having a private conversation with some friends as opposed to me deliberately trying to offend a gay person by saying it?


EDIT: Or also, if the person in question was pressing them for their views VS whether they were trying to rub it in.

I think all of these things would have to play a factor...

missny-frustrated.gif


No, context doesn't matter at all, obviously.
 
gods' law is not inherently moral, unless you think killing gay men because they lie with other is "moral".

That was moral in Old Testament Israel only. Keep in mind that in Israel EVERYONE believed in the God of Israel and his law. It would be the modern day equivalent of a small, all Evangelical Christian community making a law like that. You could always leave the community.

(Also, I think such things are contrary to the way God normally operates, but that he specifically gave an exception in that regard.)

4-11, bordering on 3.

As I have put myself at 3.5 I'm genuinely curious, have I posted anything on CFC that you would consider hate speech?

@Mango- I assume you're kidding. I was just trying to fully understand your position. Thanks for enlightening me.
 
5. Wanting theoretical laws against sodomy, but not enforcing them, (See Texas a decade ago.)
That simply isn't true. Not only were many gays persecuted in the past in Texas, they continue to be persecuted in many states even now that the Sodomy laws have ostensibly been overturned.

Past:

The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States - TExas

Present:

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans

Fortunately, at least now the DAs simply refuse to prosecute the cases. But the police are still making arrests.

Spoiler :
eqm-20110808-sodomy.jpg


“Homosexual Conduct” Still Illegal In Fourteen States

Texas ostensibly stopped enforcing the law in 1993 but it still exists on the books. And many Texans want to bring it back in some form:

re-criminalize-sodomy.jpg


Mother Jones: The Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Law That Just Won't Die

Eight years after the Supreme Court deemed Texas' anti-sodomy statute unconstitutional, the state's penal code still lists "homosexual conduct" as a criminal offense—and Republican lawmakers are fighting to keep it that way.

A pair of identical bills that have been introduced in the Texas House would delete language from the state penal code making "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a misdemeanor offense. Under the proposals, a clause in the state's health and safety code that cites the criminal statute and states that homosexuality is "not an acceptable lifestyle" would also be repealed.

That is, if the legislature's Republican supermajority ever lets the bills come to a vote.

"Their silence is deafening," says Democratic State Rep. Jessica Farrar, who sponsored one of the proposals. "It's killing us. It's just as bad as if they were vocal."

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the state's enforcement of the "homosexual conduct" provision was unconstitutional. In that case, two men were arrested for having sex in their bedroom, after a neighbor phoned in a phony weapons complaint. Texas, which at the time was one of 14 states with anti-sodomy laws on the books, has noted the Lawrence decision in its online penal code, but it takes a full act of the legislature to repeal a law.

State Rep. Wayne Christian, a Republican and one of the state's leading social conservative politicians, told the Austin American-Statesman last month that he likely wouldn't support the bills repealing the ban on gay sex because the House already has too much on its plate. Among other things, the legislature is debating a bill to allow college students to carry concealed firearms in lecture halls, a measure to require women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion, and legislation to prevent state courts from applying Islamic sharia law. Neither Christian nor any of the other five Republicans on the Legislature's criminal jurisprudence committee responded to Mother Jones' requests for comment.

Farrar has no illusions about the bill's chances: "The prospects don't look good."

Since Lawrence, the state has stopped enforcing the anti-sodomy law, but its ambiguous legal status has caused some confusion. In 2009, two gay men were kicked out of an El Paso taco chain for kissing in public; police officers threatened to book the men, citing the "homosexual conduct" language of the state penal code (in actuality, the provision only applies to anal and oral sex). The men were not charged, and the police department blamed the mishap on inexperience.

The state's sexual education curriculum, however, has been changed to reflect the decision: Its materials no longer teach that "homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense," as they did prior to the ruling. As Farrar notes, that might be the reasonable decision, but it's legally dubious, given that the statute technically still exists. "We're essentially asking them to not follow the law," she says.

Despite the state's conservative tilt, support for gay rights is picking up in Texas. According to a 2010 Texas Tribune poll, 63 percent of eligible voters supported at least some form of legal recognition for gay couples. Coleman, who has also introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage and extend hate crime protections to transgender victims, says he'll try to repeal the sodomy statute again two years from now, if his bill stalls in committee this time around.

"You make progress every time, and then sometimes, poof, there it goes," he says. "If we can just pass it out of committee, that would be progress."

TX GOP platform: Re-criminalize sodomy, make gay marriage a felony

Texas Republicans are a conservative lot. Still, it's difficult to imagine mainstream GOP voters demanding their neighbors be jailed for engaging in a little hanky-panky behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, the state's Republican party has voted on a platform [PDF link] by which their candidates will stand, and it includes the reinstatement of laws banning sodomy: otherwise known as oral and anal sex.

The party's platform also seeks to make gay marriage a felony offense, which may be confusing to most given that the state does not sanction or recognize same sex marriages, meaning any such ceremony conducted does not bear the weight of law. Whether this means the GOP wants gay couples married in other states to be pursued through Texas as dangerous criminals, the party did not specify.

"We oppose the legalization of sodomy," the platform states. "We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should it be redefined to include homosexual couples. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
 
Even if the above is true (And it seems more like isolated incidents to me than policy) reality is simply that these laws are no longer valid because of Lawrence VS Texas. Of course, people can still buck the Supreme Court, but its not technically legal to do so.

Also, you can feel free to mentally remove the Texas reference from my post, it wasn't the purpose of my post.
 
I think the confusion is that subsequent to the Supreme Court decision that no DA has prosecuted those charges by the police. But some police departments continue to enforce those laws and they continue to harass gays under those statutes because the state legislators refuse to take the laws off the books.

But prior to 2003, many people were indeed tried and convicted of sodomy. It wasn't frequently done, but it was done. That is why the Texas case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. Now, they are just arrested and tried under other laws if the DA wishes to proceed.
 
Back
Top Bottom