[aptidude187]

He explicitly wrote: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private nor is it allowed to breach the individual's privacy. Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard."

You seem to have wilfully ignored that part, since neither you nor the article you linked addressed or opposed that part.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected. But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." Being a Jew in Nazi Germany was also legal as long as it was "in private". Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. But if it works for you that's fine I guess.

[aptidude187]

>He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected

Interesting change of rhetoric after being called out, since you formulated the bizarre question "where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?", before having the epiphany that "Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected"

> But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private."

You are really going out on a limb to make nonsensical statements. The law has quite naturally limits, one of them being: the inability to judge events that it can't detect or reach. “Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan Law needs to be enforced by humans, who can only do so if they can perceive that event.

>Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden.

Same point, limits of law.

> IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression.

What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed.

[detaro]

Nothing is bizarre about that question. Something can be illegal in public, but legal in private - meaning that even if evidence of it is discovered or published against any of the parties will it's not punished.

Or it's illegal, and it will be punished if discovered.

If the claim is that sodomy in private is legal, there's a simple test: What happens if (government or private) surveillance catches evidence of it, a third-party steals and publishes private letters discussing it, ...?

[aptidude187]

>Nothing is bizarre about that question. Something can be illegal in public, but legal in private - meaning that even if evidence of it is discovered or published against any of the parties will it's not punished.

Nonsense, so it's illegal then, full stop. It doesn't become legal just because it's private, when by discovering it is punished. The law just can't enforce the ruling when it can't detect it in the first place.

>If the claim is that sodomy in private is legal

You failed to read properly, no where did I or the other guy state that it is legal in private. The argument was about the limits of the law about events it can't perceive.

Please quote the part where anyone of us made that alleged claim.

[detaro]

Read again: not punished even if its discovered.

> You failed to read properly, no where did I or the other guy state that it is legal in private. The argument was about the limits of the law about events it can't perceive.

They said: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private". If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws - because that is indeed true of pretty much all laws. E.g. "Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though, but rather that indeed as long as you don't do anything public (which might "disrupt social order") you are fine. Which AFAIK is the case in some places re religious practice: you can be of the "wrong" or no religion, practice it in private circles, but don't do anything public.

[aptidude187]

>Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private. If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws

Wrong again, I stated several times that it's about the limits of law, yet you still keep ignoring the answer and asking if I meant X or Y. It's not 'pointless' because the hyperbolic statement about being punished just for 'existing' was made. At least try to be more charitable in your biased interpretation for the sake of civility.

>Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though

I don't even see the how your inference makes any sense here. AGAIN it is about the LIMITS of the law, if you keep something private no one can punish you, but if you wilfully disrupt the social order it will have consequences in any place of the world.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed.

I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government.

[aptidude187]

> I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government.

That doesn't even make any sense. I am not trying to convince you of anything, all I did was educate you on the facts and I pointed out the inconsistencies in your arguments.