Are we a more tolerant society today?

[VanIsle]

Whether a person is born homosexual or not is not the issue. I was born heterosexual, yet I'd still think it appropriate that I be fined for committing adultery in so indiscreet a fashion as to have the authorities discover it.

Now on the moral front I should not engage in adultery even behind closed doors, but that is still at least less disrespectful of the public than to engage in it in the public eye. To do it with total lack of discretion is even worse, and add to that that if I make it known to the public, then it becomes public. Is this the example we want to give our youth?

The same applies to homosexuality. If a person is born homosexual, I feel for him. Morally I still think he should refrain from it even behind closed doors. But legally, I think we have a right to sensor such activities in public. Thus a combination of laws making it a fineable offense on the one hand while prohibiting police from spying on him on the other is a good balance I think.
.

You said: On the other hand, I also believe homosexual acts ought to be fined, and marriage ought to be restricted to between a man and a woman.
There was no discussion regarding adultery. Anywhere! - until now. I think you are back tracking a little.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Fineing someone does not threaten his safety, though the fear of being fined may push such activities towards more discretion so as to at least keep it out of public view. Again, nothing to do with homosexuals only; this applies to heterosexual couples too. Just last night as I was waiting for the light to turn green, there were two girls on a bus kissing. Seriously now! There are limits to everything. Could they not have done that behind closed doors? What might the passengers on that bus been thinking? Maybe there were children and parents on that bus too. Seriously now.

When you said that you wanted to fine homosexual acts, that gave the impression that you wanted to fine them in public and in private.

Fining them if they happen in public is OK as long as it is also done to heterosexuals, as long as there is no discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Machjo]

You said: On the other hand, I also believe homosexual acts ought to be fined, and marriage ought to be restricted to between a man and a woman.
There was no discussion regarding adultery. Anywhere! - until now. I think you are back tracking a little.

Not at all. I do support making adultery a fineable offense, and also support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We can clearly extrapolate from that that sexual acts between two men or two women would essentially fall under the former. I was simply simplifying it a little by saying that homosexual acts ought to be fined. I should have clarified 'among other things',and I have corrected that error. But there is no backtracking from my original position. It's just that I'd worded it wrongly.

But again, since I'm against espionage, such offenses would likely seldom be fined unless committed too indiscreetly.

 

[L Gilbert]

Just to clarify a few things:

I would oppose any law targeting homosexual acts specifically. I'd rather see one law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and another making adultery a fineable offense. This way, people of the opposite sex would be equally subject to this law.

I should point out too that I am opposed to the government or anyone for that matter spying on another, and do believe that no fine should be given unless there are witnesses.

Within this context, two men engaging in homosexual acts in secret would not be affected by the law, whereas a man and a woman having sex in a park and being spotted by the police could be fined on top of any applicable penalties that might already exist for let's say indecent exposure in a public place, etc.

If you combine the proposals above, it would ensure people, men and woman alike, be more discreet in such activities.

In short, I don't care if you're straight or gay, but I do not want to know about your sexual exploits. Such laws would keep such activities in the bedroom and out of the public realm.

So two homosexuals who are discreet enough would have nothing to fear.

A mishmash of ideas based on personal prejudices. Great.
Personally I don't give a hoot if someone has sex on the beach or in an elevator or whatever (as long as they are sensitive to kids' presences). It's none of my business. I have my own activities to tend to.
Human bodies do not shock me because I've seen them whole and in pieces. Most human activities don't shock me either. That's because human bodies and activities are mostly natural. It's when people do harm to others that I get annoyed. People freak when they see a man kissing another man, yet don't even blink at the sight of a man shooting another. That is really twisted.

Not at all. I do support making adultery a fineable offense, and also support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We can clearly extrapolate from that that sexual acts between two men or two women would essentially fall under the former. I was simply simplifying it a little by saying that homosexual acts ought to be fined. I should have clarified 'among other things',and I have corrected that error. But there is no backtracking from my original position. It's just that I'd worded it wrongly.

But again, since I'm against espionage, such offenses would likely seldom be fined unless committed too indiscreetly.

So basically homosexuality is bad because you don't like it, not because there's something wrong with it.

When you said that you wanted to fine homosexual acts, that gave the impression that you wanted to fine them in public and in private.

Fining them if they happen in public is OK as long as it is also done to heterosexuals, as long as there is no discrimination against homosexuals.

Something sensible from you. That's progress. Congratulations.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not at all. I do support making adultery a fineable offense, and also support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We can clearly extrapolate from that that sexual acts between two men or two women would essentially fall under the former. I was simply simplifying it a little by saying that homosexual acts ought to be fined. I should have clarified 'among other things',and I have corrected that error. But there is no backtracking from my original position. It's just that I'd worded it wrongly.

But again, since I'm against espionage, such offenses would likely seldom be fined unless committed too indiscreetly.

Perhaps seldom, but you can be sure that they will be fined, and if that happens, there will be a holy row. Questions will be asked, demands will be made to change the law. Courts will very likely strike the law down.

Indeed, this is what happened in Texas Sodomy case. Based upon an anonymous tip, police raided a home, broke down the door, stormed in and found two gay men having sex. They were charged under Texas Sodomy act, which mandated imprisonment for sodomy, up to ten years.

So don’t be too sure it won’t happen if we had such a law.

 

[Machjo]

When you said that you wanted to fine homosexual acts, that gave the impression that you wanted to fine them in public and in private.

Fining them if they happen in public is OK as long as it is also done to heterosexuals, as long as there is no discrimination against homosexuals.

Well if you prohibit police espionage, then the only time it would be fined in private would be if it were engaged in on someone else's property or public property hidden somewhere and a police officer or others accidentally walked up on them. If done on their own property behind closed doors and not announced, then it's not likely to be an issue unless they themselves make it an issue somehow. For instance, police walking in on a drug bust or something.

I've also already clarified that I'm opposed to laws specifically targeting homosexuals. If you define marriage as between a man and a woman, and make adultery a fineable offense, then clearly an unmarried couple engaging in such acts with too little discretion could likewise be fined for the same. Though granted even married couples could still be affected by some already existing laws.

Also, seeing that I like as few laws as possible, aiming rather at sweeping laws, I could even see eliminating laws relating to prostitution seeing that a simple adultery law would cover that more than adequately anyway.

 

[JLM]

So does that mean anyone with a trait that makes them different does evil things? Tell me what is so evil about VI's little grade 3 friend playing with dolls? Or is it the people with non-traditional roles that mainstream society inflicted abuse on that's evil?
I'll repeat what Anna said, there is NO rational basis for not tolerating and accepting people with behavioral/physical traits different than ours. "Hate the wsin, not the sinner"? Who says gays being gay is sinning? Religions? Like they're based on rational thought. roflmao
BTW, you people, marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity and no-one owns the copyright on the word.
Besides that, who says that homosexuality is a defect in the first place? Even you people preaching tolerance seem to accept it as a defect. Someone prove it's a defect, please.

Was it me you were looking to for answers? I don't have too many, but I can "buy" "hate the sin but love the sinner". As for examples I don't really have any, but I suppose a non practicing pedophile (I imagine there must be at least one somewhere) Some people accept the "laws" laid down in the Bible. Is that wrong? Because it's wrong for us is it wrong for everyone? Like I said more questions than answers..... :smile:

 

[L Gilbert]

Anyway, I really don't think people are any more tolerant now than before; they just look the other way more often. A couple posters in here have displayed this attitude.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps seldom, but you can be sure that they will be fined, and if that happens, there will be a holy row. Questions will be asked, demands will be made to change the law. Courts will very likely strike the law down.

Indeed, this is what happened in Texas Sodomy case. Based upon an anonymous tip, police raided a home, broke down the door, stormed in and found two gay men having sex. They were charged under Texas Sodomy act, which mandated imprisonment for sodomy, up to ten years.

So don’t be too sure it won’t happen if we had such a law.

I certainly would not support a police raid for this. If someone reports such and actually witnessed it (we could even require at least two witnesses to be safe), then unless these guys were doing it with the drapes open for all to see, it would be pretty tough to fine them. And a fine is nothing like imprisonment.

Was it me you were looking to for answers? I don't have too many, but I can "buy" "hate the sin but love the sinner". As for examples I don't really have any, but I suppose a non practicing pedophile (I imagine there must be at least one somewhere) Some people accept the "laws" laid down in the Bible. Is that wrong? Because it's wrong for us is it wrong for everyone? Like I said more questions than answers..... :smile:

A nonpracticing pedophile is a fine example. I'd have zilch against such a person and would even admire his courage to seek help for example.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well if you prohibit police espionage, then the only time it would be fined in private would be if it were engaged in on someone else's property or public property hidden somewhere and a police officer or others accidentally walked up on them. If done on their own property behind closed doors and not announced, then it's not likely to be an issue unless they themselves make it an issue somehow. For instance, police walking in on a drug bust or something.

I've also already clarified that I'm opposed to laws specifically targeting homosexuals.If you define marriage as between a man and a woman, and make adultery a fineable offense, then clearly an unmarried couple engaging in such acts with too little discretion could likewise be fined for the same. Though granted even married couples could still be affected by some already existing laws.

You say you would fine any homosexual for having sex with another homosexual but if they had heterosexual sex with their spouse it'd be okay and on the other side of your mouth you say you oppose laws discriminating against homosexuals? Laughable.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I certainly would not support a police raid for this. If someone reports such and actually witnessed it (we could even require at least two witnesses to be safe), then unless these guys were doing it with the drapes open for all to see, it would be pretty tough to fine them. And a fine is nothing like imprisonment.

A nonpracticing pedophile is a fine example. I'd have zilch against such a person and would even admire his courage to seek help for example.

But how can you prove it with a witness? Wouldn't it be the word of the witness against the word of the defendants (a kind of 'he said, she said')? The law as you have outlined seems to be unworkable.

 

[Machjo]

But how can you prove it with a witness? Wouldn't it be the word of the witness against the word of the defendants (a kind of 'he said, she said')? The law as you have outlined seems to be unworkable.

Then you have the courts to determine that. But if you required let's say two witnesses on top of any other evidence that would normally be required, then you just making it that much harder to prove adultery. So even if they have all the proof in the world minus let's say two witnesses, it's case closed no fine. So it would have ot be done in open view to a degree.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then you have the courts to determine that. But if you required let's say two witnesses on top of any other evidence that would normally be required, then you just making it that much harder to prove adultery. So even if they have all the proof in the world minus let's say two witnesses, it's case closed no fine. So it would have ot be done in open view to a degree.

Then why not simply say that it is illegal to have sex in public, of whatever variety. Then leave it to the police to prove it as they see fit, with the help of witnesses, evidence (video footage, audio recording etc.), with DNA testing etc.? Why make it totally illegal and then say that there must be witnesses?

And I believe such laws exist even today, you could be had before the law if you have sex in public, in front of people.

 

[L Gilbert]

Was it me you were looking to for answers? I don't have too many, but I can "buy" "hate the sin but love the sinner".

Then you proceed to define homosexual behavior as evil. That's illogical when you can't show where homosexuality is evil in the first place.

As for examples I don't really have any, but I suppose a non practicing pedophile (I imagine there must be at least one somewhere) Some people accept the "laws" laid down in the Bible. Is that wrong? Because it's wrong for us is it wrong for everyone? Like I said more questions than answers..... :smile:

Most laws in the Bible are fine because they make sense. A few are not sensible.
No, something wrong for me, may not be wrong for you and vice versa, but societies do have general tenets that each should follow. Tenets that allow each of us to be who we are without judgement from others should be enough, but we haven't got that far yet.

BTW, please don't bring pedophilia up. There's no co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality.

BTW, adultery is defined by Princeton U. Press dictionary as being "extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations". So unmarried people having sex with other unmarried people is perfectly fine. Married people having sex with people other than who they are married to is not fine. Gender has SFA to do with it.
I have no idea what the Bible defines adultery as and as far as I can tell, Biblical scholars can't even agree on the definition.

I'll repeat:

Anyway, I really don't think people are any more tolerant now than before; they just look the other way more often. A couple posters in here have displayed this attitude.

 

[JLM]

Anyway, I really don't think people are any more tolerant now than before; they just look the other way more often. A couple posters in here have displayed this attitude.

You've hit the nail right on the head. We have one poster who says the world is better today because we are more tolerant and yet every post he writes is a diatribe against Bush, Harper, Conservatives, Republicans, "teabaggers", Sarah Palin, the Bible, Southerners, Newt Gingrich, Rush Linbaugh- YEP, A VERY TOLERANT FELLOW INDEED but more than that a HYPOCRITE. :lol::lol::lol: Perhaps tolerance starts with being tolerant of other's opinions. :smile: Then there's the poster who has a livid hatred for Americans. We can probably ALL work at being a little more tolerant, myself included. :smile:

 

[talloola]

That is because they didn't walk for health reasons, they walked because they had to. There were plenty of other factors contributing to shorter life span. Lack of adequate medical care (no universal health care in old days, you got what you could afford to pay for), ignorance about nutrition (the two most important food groups were considered meat and dairy, fruits and vegetables were consdired sissy foods, real men ate red meat, not fruits)), ignorance about the evils fo smoking and so on.

very silly post indeed, when I was a kid, the market on friday was heaping with fresh produce, which people
grew and brought in for all to buy.

fresh fish also, or canned fish, or kippers and such.

our diet was much more simple than today.

lots of fresh vegetables, (yeah, my dad ate them too. lol), also fresh fruit, and canned fruit, lots of
home canning back then, yes, meat was usually part of most meals.
nutrition came from the whole foods we ate, including lots of milk, no lack of nutrition at all, unless
people were very poor, and that is same as today.

Walking is just a natural activity for every human, we are built to walk, and back when I was a kid,
there were lots of jobs where people moved around lots throughout the day, 'good exercise'.

 

[JLM]

That is because they didn't walk for health reasons, they walked because they had to. There were plenty of other factors contributing to shorter life span. Lack of adequate medical care (no universal health care in old days, you got what you could afford to pay for), ignorance about nutrition (the two most important food groups were considered meat and dairy, fruits and vegetables were consdired sissy foods, real men ate red meat, not fruits)), ignorance about the evils fo smoking and so on.

very silly post indeed, when I was a kid, the market on friday was heaping with fresh produce, which people
grew and brought in for all to buy.

fresh fish also, or canned fish, or kippers and such.

our diet was much more simple than today.

lots of fresh vegetables, (yeah, my dad ate them too. lol), also fresh fruit, and canned fruit, lots of
home canning back then, yes, meat was usually part of most meals.
nutrition came from the whole foods we ate, including lots of milk, no lack of nutrition at all, unless
people were very poor, and that is same as today.

Walking is just a natural activity for every human, we are built to walk, and back when I was a kid,
there were lots of jobs where people moved around lots throughout the day, 'good exercise'.

I don't think you will get any valid arguments to anything you said there. :smile:

 

[Trotz]

I'm not convinced that we are anymore welcoming than our predecessors were. Our tolerance never came from social maturation (enlightenment) but through state implementation of intimidation as result of social lobbyists.

But even then a lot of homosexual people still choose to segregrate themselves in their own social niches. Ever rarely do you see LGBT kissing in public but such a thing is accepted in the LGBT towns. Likewise, LGBT prefer going to their own bars as they know going to a regular bar might result in feeling unwelcomed.

Tolerating but not accepting.

Imagine if hate crime laws were repelled and imagine if you were allowed to post homophobic comments in your local newspaper without the RCMP becoming involved?
Would we still be tolerant of homosexuality? Probably not. Perhaps we don't like hearing that but its one of those "cold hard truths"

 

[karrie]

Just to clarify a few things:

I would oppose any law targeting homosexual acts specifically. I'd rather see one law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and another making adultery a fineable offense. This way, people of the opposite sex would be equally subject to this law.

I should point out too that I am opposed to the government or anyone for that matter spying on another, and do believe that no fine should be given unless there are witnesses.

Within this context, two men engaging in homosexual acts in secret would not be affected by the law, whereas a man and a woman having sex in a park and being spotted by the police could be fined on top of any applicable penalties that might already exist for let's say indecent exposure in a public place, etc.

If you combine the proposals above, it would ensure people, men and woman alike, be more discreet in such activities.

In short, I don't care if you're straight or gay, but I do not want to know about your sexual exploits. Such laws would keep such activities in the bedroom and out of the public realm.

So two homosexuals who are discreet enough would have nothing to fear.

We already have fines for having sex in public, so I don't really get what you're on about.

 

[JLM]

We already have fines for having sex in public, so I don't really get what you're on about.

There is always something to spoil the fun..........:smile: