You are asking good questions; unfortunately it would take a lot of time and effort to flesh out the details of such legislation. And such time and effort I'm unwilling to undertake at this time given that there is about a 0% chance of such legislation ever being enacted in the United States.

Should be pretty easy to give us the tent poles of your policy in a few sentences.

For instance:
Two men are caught doing same anal deviancy behind a rest stop bathroom.
A 1st offence for both of them. What would be a fair punishment under Lagtight's legislation?

Not asking for details. Fine vs. jail vs. prison would suffice for now.

Why you think it should be illegal is a pretty fundamental question that I don't think you should just skip over!

Since the activity is occuring in a public place, probably something like twenty hours of community service.

Penalty should be a fine or community service.

The argument for outlawing homosexual behavior is that homosexuals tend to be predatory. The ****-Predators are literally destroying the Roman Catholic Church, and are seemingly doing the same to the Boy Scouts of America.

Is this the same punishment for public heterosexual intercourse?

Yes.

This is complete and utter bullshit. There is as much reality behind the statement as there would be behind the statement "black people should be second class citizens because they tend to be less intelligent". The majority of sexual predation is committed by heterosexuals and this is true even relative to proportion in society as a whole.

You have a lot of opinions I disagree with but this is probably the most abhorrent thing I've seen you post. It makes me legitimately angry that anyone can espouse such an outdated, hateful, and prejudiced view, let alone someone calling themselves a Christian.

The trick is to oscillate between positions as to whether God's morality is arbitrary or not. Whichever position you try and push back against he'll flip to the other.

Yes, this is what I was asking. And unsurprisingly it's bigoted nonsense that exposes the lie that you "don't fear homosexuals":


And let's explore your reasoning for a moment. Let's say it was true that some members of a group (Church leaders for example) were predators. How do you get to making it illegal for all people to practice Church leadership instead of just the predators (which there are already laws against, regardless of their leadership positions in the Christian church).

Why would I fear homosexuals? The ****-predators target cute choir boys and boy scouts, not ugly old men like me.

Factoid: According to Wikipedia, various Catholic diocese in the United States alone have so far paid out $1.26 billion in sex abuse settlements. And there is no end in sight at the moment.

Last year, the Boy Scouts of America filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection, citing possible liabilities ranging from $100 to $500 million, depending on how the various sex-abuse cases play out. Over 92,000 claims of sex abuse have been filed against the Boy Scouts .

We'll see if there is more hate directed at me in this thread for stating the facts, or against the individuals in these organizations who committed these horrible deeds.

Holy ****, you really are a bigoted *******.

This is basically textbook prejudice. Smear and discriminate against an entire group of people on the basis of the actions of a few members. And why is it that you think this means we should outlaw homosexual behavior rather than Catholic or Boy Scout behavior? Or how about young men, who are much more likely to commit violent crimes than other people - should we limit their freedom as a result? Or how about black people. Racists like to post factoids about how they are more likely to commit crimes than white people. Do you think that we should limit their freedom as well as a result?

In a society where people are treated as free and equal we outlaw and punish the predatory behavior itself, not the people who have similar characteristics to those who commit crimes. You have described yourself as somewhat libertarian in the past, but the argument you are making here is fundamentally opposed to libertarianism. Having liberty and being free means the government doesn't punish something just because it is sinful.

He’s probably be on board with outlawing Catholicism, it there were a practical way to do so.

You've just asked why would you fear something immediately followed by WHAT your fear is. If I feared the intellectual demise of the American public (flat Earthers, geocentrists, fundamentalists to name some reasons), that wouldn't mean I was quaking in my boots, or that I would be affected personally, would it? Yet it could still be a fear.

As is common, you ignored the rest of my comment in which I asked you to explain your flawed reasoning (and Original Position has asked about it too, now).


It all sounds like nonsense, in fact, since you are describing punishment for acts of consensual sex that have nothing to do with predatory behaviour.

Literally nothing in this has anything to do with homosexuality. All child sexual abuse is horrific but it has nothing to do with homosexuality and equating the two is bigotry that has no factual support.

The reality is that 90%+ of all child sexual abuse is heterosexual males targetting underage females. Even in the cases of males abusing males the choice of victim is almost always just a function of who the abuser has close contact with and is often perpetrated by heterosexuals who, as you even note yourself, are attracted to the "cute" or feminine characteristics of young boys.

I have already said at least once in this thread that I am against outlawing homosexual behavior in the United States.

I was detailing on what grounds that I would favour the outlawing of homosexual behavior. This subtopic is a contrary-to-fact hypothetical.

Curious that you seem more upset with me stating facts than you are with the ****-predators raping boys.

Question: Which is a greater sin: being a bigot or supporting a woman's "right" to kill her unborn baby?

You were clear that the reason is that it would not be practical to implement. Own your position.

Listen, you have fundamental misunderstandings on this topic. Given how toxic this misunderstanding is, I would recommend you spend a very minimal amount of time checking into it for yourself. Is that agreeable at all?

Very generally: heterosexuality and homosexuality refer to people's attraction to sexually mature partners. Pedophilia refers to an attraction to prepubescent children. An older man being attracted to a sexually matured sixteen year old girl or boy is inappropriate for many reasons, but it wouldn't be accurate to call that man a pedophile. Halve that age, and you have a pedophile.

True pedophiles often don't have any attraction toward sexually mature partners, so it wouldn't be appropriate to call them heterosexual or homosexual. This is why pedophilia can be described as a sexual attraction/orientation - not because it is in any way acceptable, but because it is completely separate from opposite sex and same sex attractions in normal people.


eta: I can't believe I really had to spend time writing a post on ****ing pedophilia, because of your ignorance. Please correct your position, for everyone's benefit.

Okay let me run my analysis through the moral code of a bunch of bigoted, misogynist, primitive, superstitious, hate mongering, magic believing zealots of thousands of years ago, and what comes out should be quite enlightened, quite humane, quite fair and objective. Because in my mind, objective means "comes from supernatural magic."

I'm aware that you are opposed to laws outlawing homosexual behavior because they are too hard to implement. The contrary-to-fact hypothetical you were discussing was ignoring that constraint. My argument is that in that hypothetical outlawing homosexuality would not be treating people as free and equal, and also that your justification was based on prejudice, where you ascibe the sins of a few members of a group to all members of that group.

I'm not on board with outlawing Catholicism, but I would like to see all persons complicit with the sexual abuse of children brought to justice.

Upon further thought, I am now opposed to the outlawing of homosexual behavior.

As several posters have noted, even if there were a positive correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia (which many studies have shown that there is not), that would still not be sufficient grounds for outlawing homosexual behavior between consenting adults.

I now agree with your argument.

My position has been corrected. (See above two posts).