Badlittlepup Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Whilst I dislike these peoples viewpoint, I think they should be allowed to express it. They weren't calling for any crime to be committed, they were just expressing the standpoint of their religion. Let them off I would say and deny them any publicity. Their views are mediaeval, but they should have the right to express them if they want. The rest of us have the right to ridicule them. Really? I would say people had the right to hold those views, possibly to express them privately but never to publicly call for people to be murdered because of their sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You're saying that merely holding private homophobic or racist views without acting on them isn't a crime, but i contest that in a way, it sort of is if an apparent "racist" or "homophobic" motivation is attributed to a particular crime, making the charge more serious. Thinking. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 i think things are only legislated upon when they're done. .... murder, by definition has to end with the intentional killing of another, ... Wrong. The death of a human being is a necessary ingredient of the crime of murder, but the mens rea for murder does not require the intention to kill anybody. 'Things are only legislated upon when they're done'. What is the legislation which prohibits murder in England and Wales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Thinking. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doing. People have campaigned for the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic etc etc motivations for crimes to be taken into consideration when being charged and sentenced for those crimes, effectively bringing a thought-crime dimension to prosecutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Quite simply because the story is about Lot. It was the knowing of the angels Lot was condemning.... so that might be bestiality or something equivalent but with a higher species? Either way it cannot be homosexuality. "Cannot be homosexuality"! It explicitly states "ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women" that cannot be anything other than homosexuality. Lot may well have condemned other behaviours as well including bestiality but that doesn't magically change the fact that homosexuality is explicitly mentioned and condemned. Also as this writer interprets it... it is not the same sex that is being condemned... here is another translation.... And Lot, when he said unto his people: 'Will you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever done before you? Verily, with lust you approach men instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!' (7: 80-81) with lust you approach men instead of women just as with the other translations yours specifically mentions homosexuality. It sounds a bit like a Carry on film excerpt... http://muslimfeminist.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-homosexuality-sin.html I admit there is some condemnation there, but it is not clear homosexuality was the object of the condemnation, so much as the lust... the homosexuality is noted... but not necessarily in a way that is particularly significant. This really is pathetic the condemnation is because the lust is directed at "men instead of women" As for your backtracked claim that the reference to homosexuality is "not significant". It's mentioned on 4 separate occasions all referring to a single incident, if it "particularly significant" then why is the "men in preference to women" thing mention time after time? It is also not what the story was about... which even in the crudest sense is an attempted mass rape of angels. Those being approached with lust weren't even human, the fact of the context in the narrative being a rape is sufficient to explain the condemnation. It may well have been, which rather begs the question; Why was repeated reference made to homosexuality other than to specifically condemn homosexuality? Also the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality anywhere.... it condemns ritual sex and sex with angels. The clobber pasages are all mistranslations and amount to a mere handful out of the thousands of verses in the bible. There are even 3 same sex relationships in the Bible written about positively... David and Saul, Ruth and another woman and there is another male homosexual relationship as well that escapes me at the moment. Yet another blatant lie, which rather like the one you made about Jimmy's verse not mentioning homosexuality. Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 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. Rom.1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Now maybe homosexuality isn't condemned in your PC bible with, which no doubt also condemns slavery, but in the bible which people actually read and use homosexuality is repeatedly condemned. Just as it is in the similarly despicable Koran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 People have campaigned for the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic etc etc motivations for crimes to be taken into consideration when being charged and sentenced for those crimes, effectively bringing a thought-crime dimension to prosecutions. You've got it the wrong way round. Why do you think a racist assault is treated more seriously than a straightforward assault? Because a racist assault threatens everyone of that race. So if racism is a motivating factor the sentence is harsher. Makes sense doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You've got it the wrong way round. Why do you think a racist assault is treated more seriously than a straightforward assault? Because a racist assault threatens everyone of that race. So if racism is a motivating factor the sentence is harsher. Makes sense doesn't it? When a burglar is prosecuted for a burglary, he is prosecuted for that particular burglary, not other burglaries he could have done but hasn't done. I'm sure that's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 When a burglar is prosecuted for a burglary, he is prosecuted for that particular burglary, not other burglaries he could have done but hasn't done. I'm sure that's how it works. That's how it works, yes. What has that got to do with what I've posted? We're not talking about crimes that haven't been committed, screaming homophobic abuse and then killing a man means you will get a harsher sentence because the offence is exacerbated by the homophobic element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That's how it works, yes. What has that got to do with what I've posted? We're not talking about crimes that haven't been committed, screaming homophobic abuse and then killing a man means you will get a harsher sentence because the offence is exacerbated by the homophobic element. Well given that the only possible penalty for murder is life imprisonment, what harsher sentence do you envision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Well given that the only possible penalty for murder is life imprisonment, what harsher sentence do you envision? Murder wasn't the charge. You can knock someone to the ground then kick them in the head and successfully reason you didn't mean to kill them. No murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.