• jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • Nicbudd@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • Hirom@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.