Posted on 07/14/2007 12:24:48 PM PDT by madprof98
I missed the announcement of that research finding. Maybe the libs will let us know which scientific journal it was in.
Just for starters ---point one in a 25-point plan --- I'd like the criminal penalty for sodomizing a boy to be akin to the penalty for murder.
oh yes, but not a majority.
And also the raping of a girl?
You've set me thinking. There should be different degrees of rape (not just statutory and forcible, but first, second, and third degree of this, and first, second, and third degree of that.) So the answer is "yes," for the most serious category.
What? I didn't say that. Here's what I DID say:
"There should be different degrees of rape (not just statutory and forcible, but first, second, and third degree of this, and first, second, and third degree of that.) So the answer is "yes," for the most serious category."
There are degrees of badness, even among different crimes which are already damnably bad. My thought here is that there could be first, second, third degrees of rape; also that the badness of it can be mitigated or exasperated by circumstances.
For instance: aggravating factors would include (but not be limited to) the use of threat, force, or drugs/alcohol to take down the victim, or the assailant being in a position of authority (teacher, minister, doctor) or in loco parentis guardianship over the victim; the assailant being knowingly HIV+ or carrying some other infectious disease; serial offenses.
Mitigating factors would include (but not be limited to) lack of mental capacity on the part of the assailant, ambiguous consent/nonconsent on the part of the victim... hmm... hard to think of mitigating factors.
Anyhow, rape of a girl is especially serious because she could be impregnated against her will; rape of a boy is particularly serious because it can mess him sexually for the rest of his life.
The mose serious penalties in either case (rape of female or male) should be akin to the penaties for murder.
On rereading, you certainly didn't. My apologies ... I'm not sure what part of "yes" I didn't understand. :-(
Thank you for a graceful apology. It’s -— in the context of Freeperdom -— so refreshing. :o)
Just for starters ---point one in a 25-point plan --- I'd like the criminal penalty for sodomizing a boy to be akin to the penalty for murder.
Since you'd make the penalty for raping a girl equally stern, that appears to be a "no" to my original question.
Well, the question illustrates the ambiguity of words. I don't know what you mean by "anything related to homosexuality."
Hey, I'm related to homosexuality inasmuch as I'm related to a couple of troubled relatives.
So, could you be more specific?
Your insight reminds me of something Mother Teresa said: "God did not call me to be successful. He called meto be faithful."
Yes. I'll get bold and give a "yes" to that. For anal sodomy, anyway, since that is an intrinsically abusive act even in the medical sense. But that's not going to be accomplished quickly or soon. In the short term, I'd like a serious crackdown in every city in the U.S. on anonymous gay sex at public restrooms and public parks.
That would be objectively protective of the lives and wellbeing of gay men, and, as well, would free our cities from obnoxious and dangerous public indecencies.
Would you apply that law to heterosexuals as well? If not, why not?
But that's not going to be accomplished quickly or soon. In the short term, I'd like a serious crackdown in every city in the U.S. on anonymous gay sex at public restrooms and public parks.
Would you let straight sex be legal at public restrooms and public parks?
I wrote: I'd like a serious crackdown in every city in the U.S. on anonymous gay sex at public restrooms and public parks.
You wrote: Would you let straight sex be legal at public restrooms and public parks?
What? Are you kidding? Let me make it clear: No man on woman, no woman on woman, no man on man, no human on squirrel, duck, goose, raccoon, no sex, no way, in no public place, no, no, and no.
Any questions?
So you'd ban anal sodomy between a husband and wife? And you consider this a conservative policy?
I wrote: I'd like a serious crackdown in every city in the U.S. on anonymous gay sex at public restrooms and public parks.
You wrote: Would you let straight sex be legal at public restrooms and public parks?
What? Are you kidding? Let me make it clear: No man on woman [...]
So you'd make some homosexual acts illegal only in the same sense that it's illegal for homosexuals, like heterosexuals, to rob banks. Got it.
However, I believe that anyone who is sodomized --- including a wife --- ought to in theory be able to bring charges. Then it's their job to convince the jury.
This Administration makes Chamberlain look like Churchill.
Even if it was consensual but she later regretted it and decided to bring charges?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.