toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[Arthur Brain]

I am talking about which sins deserve the death penalty, and why they were picked out from other sins as something so offensive that the perpetrators were to be given the harshest penalty.

The death penalty in the Bible was specified for sins that do great harm to individuals, families, and society.
The death penalty had two specific purposes:

• stop the people committing the abomination
• discourage others from committing the same abomination

• 
  
  So you do advocate an OT theocracy then don't you? That's the only way you'd have such considered as capital crimes in modern society, by imposing such a state upon all people. Ok, I'm glad you agree it's fantasy but at least be honest enough to admit you advocate it in principle correct?
  
  Obviously I completely disagree with what you promote. Society back then was far harsher and tougher to live in for the most part than what we're accustomed to now. It would have been a lot more 'blunted' in certain aspects. Things progress as outlined before. Slavery was accepted in times gone by. Repression of women, racism etc, so things change. Do you literally think people should be bludgeoned to death by rocks still GO?
  
  I guess you'd also deny the estranged parents of a child to reconcile if they could sort out their differences. You'd just have the 'guilty party' executed no matter what? How black and white is your stance on adultery exactly? Does a serial cassanova deserve the exact same as a lonely person not exactly abused, but in a sterile relationship seeking some warmth from another?
  
  

Deuteronomy 17 4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.​

Deuteronomy 19 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.​

The sins listed in the Bible as deserving the death penalty still do the same amount of harm today to individuals, families, and societies.
That is the truth that I am pointing out.

Once again these verses are speaking to churches not entire suburbs and cities. Maybe we should ban shrimp eating as well? Clothes of mixed fabrics etc? It's this legalistic attitude towards people in general that just smacks of the pharisees. How is executing a living parent not causing harm to their offspring or cheated spouse even? Plenty of folk get back together after a 'rough patch'. Does it even occur to you that in todays society you'd see the marriage rate actually plummet in addition?

Are there any shades of grey in your view at all? Have you actually thought through what you advocate?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why don't we also execute animals which are caught in homosexual behavior ?
In the middle ages, they used to execute animals for committing "crimes." And they actually put them on trial ! I kid you not. They actually did this. It seems we still have a lot of people in this supposedly enlightened and civilized 21st century who want to persecute homosexuals. Their minds are hopelessly stuck in the barbarous past.
Unbelievable !

It's unwise to justify homosexuality for humans simply because such activities may be practiced by animals.

Animals engage in the following:
•“Kill and eat members of their species, that is, they are often cannibals;
•“Kill and eat some of their offspring, that is, they commit cannibalistic infanticide;
•“Compete with other males for the opportunity to have sex with a particular female, often killing or debilitating the rival;
•“Fight with and exile or kill the ‘owner’ of a ‘harem,’ kill his ‘children,’ and then raise other children with the females in the harem (the females show no ‘loyalty’ to their former ‘husband’ and blithely have sex with the new guy).
•“Discriminate against and kill ‘aliens’ to their particular territory or tribe;
•“Often have sex with some of their offspring;
•“Often have sex with relatives and near-relatives (from a human perspective, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, etc.), in other words, they commit incest;
•“Let the males just about always get their way (e.g., eat first, win any spats),
•“Often allow large groups of males to have sex with a female, even leaving her near-dead or even dead, that is, they engage in ‘gang rape;’ and
•“Often allow one male to hog all the females in a given area, driving away his ‘sons’ and his ‘friends’ who would like a little sexual ‘pleasure’ with the ‘girls.’

Author Luiz Sergi Solimeo notes: “If seemingly ‘homosexual’ acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bring man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?”

 

[Tambora]

:yawn:

Only a Christian would equate what two adults do with what a freak does to a child.

You know why? Because to you uptight prudes, it's all the same, anyway. Any sex outside of the confines of the marriage bed is perverse and aberrant. You simply don't see any difference between a man and a horse and a man and his fiancee; the particulars are irrelevant. That's some sad commentary, and it sheds a light on the dark, twisted, self-hating underbelly of the body of Christ.

P.S. By the way: if you can't say unconditionally that a child can never give consent, I'm not the one with a problem here.

I do see a lack of morals.
And that is why I WANT a line drawn.
And that is why I get upset when I see those with a lack of morals try to keep dimming the line little by little.

 

[some other dude]

And that line should stay where it is. And unlike planks like SOD who reckon that "liberals" will tolerate the line being lowered to pre pubescence or some such nonsense it'll stay as it is.

Oh artie, I told you before. In thirty years you'll be championing pedophile rights along with the rest of your liberal ilk.

You deny it now, but that won't matter in thirty years. Progressives like you have been wroking their little behinds off trying to make modern culture a cesspool.

And you've succeeded in Britain! :thumb:

 

[Persephone66]

 

[some other dude]

Only by some people's standard.

Gotta draw the line somewhere,

But some would rather let the line keep getting dimmer and dimmer until there is no line at all.

this

 

[Rusha]

Pink ponies are evil! Eventually, we will all become pink ponies if we continue to tolerate them!

 

[some other dude]

You know why? Because to you uptight prudes, it's all the same, anyway. Any sex outside of the confines of the marriage bed is perverse and aberrant. You simply don't see any difference between a man and a horse and a man and his fiancee; the particulars are irrelevant. That's some sad commentary, and it sheds a light on the dark, twisted, self-hating underbelly of the body of Christ.

Nice tantrum.

Do you feel better now?


Would you like me to get you a pony?

 

[Persephone66]

Pink ponies are evil! Eventually, we will all become pink ponies if we continue to tolerate them!

 

[Persephone66]

Nice tantrum.

Do you feel better now?


Would you like me to get you a pony?

Did someone say pony?

 

[Tambora]

In thirty years you'll be championing pedophile rights

The pedophiles are already using the same argument.
"It's expressing 'love' to another. Shouldn't little children be allowed to express 'love'?"

 

[Rusha]

The pedophiles are already using the same argument.
"It's expressing 'love' to another. Shouldn't little children be allowed to express 'love'?"

We are speaking of homosexuals ... not pedophiles. I personally disregard anything a pedophile would have to say. Wouldn't you?

 

[some other dude]

We are speaking of homosexuals ... not pedophiles. I personally disregard anything a pedophile would have to say. Wouldn't you?

You would have said the same thing fifty years ago about homosexuals.

 

[Tambora]

We are speaking of homosexuals ... not pedophiles. I personally disregard anything a pedophile would have to say. Wouldn't you?

Why would you disregard their lack of morals?
They claim they were 'born that way' also.
They claim that all they are doing is expressing 'love' to another also.
They are steadily working on dimming that line just as the homosexuals have done.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh artie, I told you before. In thirty years you'll be championing pedophile rights along with the rest of your liberal ilk.

You deny it now, but that won't matter in thirty years. Progressives like you have been wroking their little behinds off trying to make modern culture a cesspool.

And you've succeeded in Britain! :thumb:

Considering I'm now addressing a child one can only hope that in 30 years time when you become an adult, you learn to act, think, reason and debate like one. Until then....

:wave2:

 

[Rusha]

Why would you disregard their lack of morals?
They claim they were 'born that way' also.

Hey, the same could be said for serial killers. However, serial killers, like pedophiles, PREY on non consenting adults.

They claim that all they are doing is expressing 'love' to another also.

And you are listening to them? Okay.

They are steadily working on dimming that line just as the homosexuals have done.

Of course ... except for one big difference. There is no comparison to the intention and actions of homosexuals and pedophiles. That is why homosexuals can go out in public, show affection and not hide their relationships with their significant other.

In the same way that child molesters are out in the open and don't keep their activities hidden. Oh wait. No. They DO hide their activities, use threats and sometimes violence to keep their secret hidden.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[some other dude]

:baby:

Considering I'm now addressing a tard one can only hope that in 30 years time you'll become less of a tard. Until then, we can expect nothing from you except that you will continue to act, think, reason and debate like a tard. :chuckle:

 

[some other dude]

Why do you suppose that is?

C'mon Rusha, you're not usually this tardly.

Fifty years ago homos did the same thing pedophiles do now to hide their secret.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would you disregard their lack of morals?
They claim they were 'born that way' also.
They claim that all they are doing is expressing 'love' to another also.
They are steadily working on dimming that line just as the homosexuals have done.

It's not so much what any paedophile would wish to have as legislature, it's society in general. The massive difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is adult consent. Unless you think rape and murder would somehow have 'dimmed lines' then what leads you to believe that society in general would tolerate the abuse of children? It's absolutely detested amongst all people I know from the far left to the far right. This twisted asinine crap that being liberal would open the doors to such ages being lowered is typical of folk like SOD, but I sincerely hope you're not forwarding anything similar?

 

[Tambora]

There is no comparison to the intention and actions of homosexuals and pedophiles. That is why homosexuals can go out in public, show affection and not hide their relationships with their significant other.

In the same way that child molesters are out in the open and don't keep their activities hidden. Oh wait. No. They DO hide their activities, use threats and sometimes violence to keep their secret hidden.

Why do you suppose that is?

I'll tell you how I suppose that is.
Because the line has not yet been moved.
Just as the homosexuals use to hide their activity before the line was moved.

Tolerance for immorality is becoming the new fad.
No more shame, just tolerance.