Uganda Proposes Death Penalty for Homosexual Acts; Rick Warren Drawn into Ensuing Controversy

I think this is a fascinating issue, and wonder what other fundamentalists think about the biblical validity of a modern day government making such a rule against homosexuality.

[sbradley] I think this is a fascinating issue, and wonder what other fundamentalists think about the biblical validity of a modern day government making such a rule against homosexuality.

What is your opinion on the matter? My viewpoint is pretty tenuous.

On the one hand, we know that the death penalty for homosexuality was instituted for His nation, Israel. So the penalty does match the crime, at least for covenant people.

Leviticus 18:22, 29

22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable… ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’ “

On the other hand, this goes back to the question of ‘What standards should Christian people expect of lost people and governments?’ I default to the Jewish understanding of the Covenant of Noah (Genesis 9). I do think that government can regulate homosexuality and view it as a sin (which it is, in God’s eyes). Many states in the U.S. did so up until very recently. But I think that the death penalty should be reserved for acts of violence (shedding human blood).

I think Rick Warren has a great perspective for a nation that is going down the tubes and one that already has cast aside Judeo-Christian restraints. But I am not particularly aware of where Uganda is. I do think there was a whole lot less homosexuality in the U.S. when homosexuals stayed in the closet. In the past, most young people would not consider homosexuality: now it has become a “legitimate” option to consider.

Should a government of the people only regulate and punish crimes against the people? That is, barring a theocracy, shouldn’t a human government leave laws of religion alone? I understand that ultimately God is ruler over all nations but we make a distinction between one where God is the highest appellate authority (where a human ruler can be over-ruled by anyone taking his issue to God physically and directly) and one where the buck stops at a man’s desk. In the latter case, I think historically (though I could be wrong, just thinking off the top of my head) the laws tend to be aimed at promoting the common good and preventing violence and defrauding from one man to another, and that issues of morals have been largely left alone.

Based on this part of me wants to say that there shouldn’t be laws one way or the other, for or against homosexuality, if for no other reason than it’s not really the government’s place to make a law about it (though the waters get murkier when you leave an extreme view like Uganda’s and focus on civil unions and marriages, matters that have historically been a rubber-stamp ordeal for the state). That viewpoint, though, doesn’t violate my personal belief that it is sin.

…does that make me a Libertarian? O_o

[mounty]…does that make me a Libertarian? O_o

I don’t know. But do you think people should have freedom to discriminate against homosexuals? I do. If I had an apartment to rent out, for example (I don’t own ANY buildings, so this is hypothetical), I should have freedom to say, “I don’t agree with your lifestyle and I don’t want to rent this place out to you.”

That’s a right I believe I have. Is THAT libertarian thinking?

Beats me, Ed. The definition of “Libertarian” is a very small and fast-moving target, I think. That’s why I asked. :D Your property is your property and you should (and for the most part do) have the right to refuse to rent it to whomever you choose, even for something as nonsensical as “I don’t like people who wear paisley ties.” Of course, if it were me, given the sensitive nature of the topic I’d probably come up with a less inflammatory reason for refusing rent. ;) Exercising your rights doesn’t have to mean painting a very large target on yourself.

I think government always legislates morality, it’s just a matter of how they define morality. We use to legislate against adultery, drinking, and homosexuality. I think those were better times in America. But now homosexuality isn’t wrong in their eyes, so therefore it isn’t a moral issue to legislate.

I think this is fascinating because with the rise of hate crime concerns I would think that anyone who dares say that homosexuality should be legislated against (fines, imprisonment, execution) would then be attacked as promoting hate and would face some sort of judicial punishment. I think if someone were to really force this question on key Christian figures and they gave any answer that hinted at saying that homosexuality should be legislated against, that they would be facing some serious accusations and legal proceedings.