• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    cases deemed “aggravated,” which include repeat offenses, gay sex that transmits terminal illness, or same-sex intercourse with a minor, an elderly person or a person with disabilities.

    If they took out the “gay sex” and the “by death” parts, it would almost sound like a reasonable general rule.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      You think someone should be locked up for “repeat offenses” of having sex? Is that reasonable?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        That’s why I said “almost”. Like, “repeat offenses” on itself is nonsense, but “repeat offenses” + “spreading an illness”, should probably get the “aggravated” treatment.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          The law’s authors are motivated by homophobia, not public health.

          I doubt suggesting tweaks is a good use of time and efforts. It should simply be opposed , and its authors shamed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            I was thinking more in the line that they seem to have taken some reasonable law, and modified it to fit their motives.

            The authors are definitely homophobic, and the missionaries who gave them the idea, who keep praising these changes, should be equally shamed.