Another honor killing.

[Pogo]

From another thread where some other assclown insisted on being wrong for the cause of the Bigot Brigade:

The notions of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion.45 Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in historical events in many countries, and in many works of literature.

For instance, duelling was a key practice through which claims of masculine honour were made, maintained and understood in Western societies.46 In France, Le Cid told the story of a man insulted by a slap across the face, who asked his son to defend his honour in a duel. In Canada, duelling continued into the late 1800s.47

In Britain, for example, the fifth wife of Henry VIII was beheaded based on allegations of adultery. In British literature, Shakespeare's Desdemona was killed over allegations of infidelity, and Romeo and Juliet tracked an ancient family feud over honour. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table centred on notions of honour. The premise of the Three Musketeers was the King's guards avenging the betrayal of the king by Cardinal Richelieu.

Similar notions can be traced in Latin American societies. In Brazil and parts of Latin America, machismo is often described as a code of honour. In the early times of Peru, the laws of the Incas permitted husbands to starve their wives to death as punishment for committing an adulterous act. Aztec laws resulted in death by stoning or strangulation for female adultery during the early times of Mexico.48

Several great wars started over honour. Likely the clearest of these was the Trojan War, which began over the honour of Helen. Her father required that all her suitors defend his choice for her marriage, thereby setting all of Greece against Troy.

In Ancient Roman times, the senior male within a household retained the right to kill a related woman if she was engaged in pre-marital or extra-marital relations.49 According to Blackstone, the Roman law justified homicide "when committed in defence of the chastity either of oneself or relations".50
...
In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. --- Historical Context: Origins of Honor Killing​

Sorry, it doesn't catapult the propaganda that only Muslims do it, therefore they are subhuman and inferior.

When has an honor killing ever occurred in a Western Christian nation?

Right in this OP story, if you consider this a "Christian nation".

Then there's this, again from still another thread where you wackjobs kept trotting out the same canard expecting different results:

One has to question the truth in many of the stories, especially that crap about the bible and buried family..
However, honour killings do happen in this strange, twisted world we live in so I thought I'd post some more reliable stories from the western press.
Fairness and balance is important when discussing such a volatile subject.

Sheriff: Shooter thought wife had sex with Louisiana pastor - CNN.com

Jealous husband cleared of murdering wife after discovering affair | UK news | theguardian.com

Jailed For Life: Husband Who Strangled Cheating Wife After Affair Confession*-*Sky Tyne and Wear

Man murders uncle over alleged affair with wife | Bangkok Post: news

BBC News - Damian Rzeszowski killed wife and children in Jersey 'after wife's affair'

I apologise there's only one black and no Muslims involved in these stories.
I realise this is an anti Muslim hate thread but all the top search results were Whites and/or Christians.
I'll try harder next time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

No we haven't you lying sack of garbage. the 1st Amendment does not protect obvious criminal acts like murder. We have objected to the fact that when it comes to religion the left bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims while denying the same or similar things to Christians. Remind us? If a Muslim refuses to bake a cake for a gay is that bad too? How about for a Jew?

New York actually set up rooms for Muslims to pray in while in school while denying Christians the same right or to use any room for any reason. And you turds applauded it.

 

[Kondor3]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

No we haven't you lying sack of garbage. the 1st Amendment does not protect obvious criminal acts like murder. We have objected to the fact that when it comes to religion the left bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims while denying the same or similar things to Christians. Remind us? If a Muslim refuses to bake a cake for a gay is that bad too? How about for a Jew?

New York actually set up rooms for Muslims to pray in while in school while denying Christians the same right or to use any room for any reason. And you turds applauded it.

What's hilarious is a radical Muslim would behead these coddling left loons just as quickly as they would a Christian. They are just as much infidels as anyone else. Liberals are too damn stupid to live

 

[bripat9643]

From another thread where some other assclown insisted on being wrong for the cause of the Bigot Brigade:

The notions of honour and shame and their use as justification for violence and killing is not unique to any one culture or religion.45 Indeed, honour and honour-based violence are reflected in historical events in many countries, and in many works of literature.

For instance, duelling was a key practice through which claims of masculine honour were made, maintained and understood in Western societies.46 In France, Le Cid told the story of a man insulted by a slap across the face, who asked his son to defend his honour in a duel. In Canada, duelling continued into the late 1800s.47

In Britain, for example, the fifth wife of Henry VIII was beheaded based on allegations of adultery. In British literature, Shakespeare's Desdemona was killed over allegations of infidelity, and Romeo and Juliet tracked an ancient family feud over honour. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table centred on notions of honour. The premise of the Three Musketeers was the King's guards avenging the betrayal of the king by Cardinal Richelieu.

Similar notions can be traced in Latin American societies. In Brazil and parts of Latin America, machismo is often described as a code of honour. In the early times of Peru, the laws of the Incas permitted husbands to starve their wives to death as punishment for committing an adulterous act. Aztec laws resulted in death by stoning or strangulation for female adultery during the early times of Mexico.48

Several great wars started over honour. Likely the clearest of these was the Trojan War, which began over the honour of Helen. Her father required that all her suitors defend his choice for her marriage, thereby setting all of Greece against Troy.

In Ancient Roman times, the senior male within a household retained the right to kill a related woman if she was engaged in pre-marital or extra-marital relations.49 According to Blackstone, the Roman law justified homicide "when committed in defence of the chastity either of oneself or relations".50
...
In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. --- Historical Context: Origins of Honor Killing​

Sorry, it doesn't catapult the propaganda that only Muslims do it, therefore they are subhuman and inferior.

When has an honor killing ever occurred in a Western Christian nation?

Right in this OP story, if you consider this a "Christian nation".

Then there's this, again from still another thread where you wackjobs kept trotting out the same canard expecting different results:

One has to question the truth in many of the stories, especially that crap about the bible and buried family..
However, honour killings do happen in this strange, twisted world we live in so I thought I'd post some more reliable stories from the western press.
Fairness and balance is important when discussing such a volatile subject.

Sheriff: Shooter thought wife had sex with Louisiana pastor - CNN.com

Jealous husband cleared of murdering wife after discovering affair | UK news | theguardian.com

Jailed For Life: Husband Who Strangled Cheating Wife After Affair Confession*-*Sky Tyne and Wear

Man murders uncle over alleged affair with wife | Bangkok Post: news

BBC News - Damian Rzeszowski killed wife and children in Jersey 'after wife's affair'

I apologise there's only one black and no Muslims involved in these stories.
I realise this is an anti Muslim hate thread but all the top search results were Whites and/or Christians.
I'll try harder next time.

The most recent one you posted is 500 years old. Romans were not Christians, and neither were Incas or Aztecs. 5000 honor kills occurred last year in Muslim countries. Honor killing is a Muslim thing.

 

[Kondor3]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

No we haven't you lying sack of garbage. the 1st Amendment does not protect obvious criminal acts like murder. We have objected to the fact that when it comes to religion the left bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims while denying the same or similar things to Christians. Remind us? If a Muslim refuses to bake a cake for a gay is that bad too? How about for a Jew?

New York actually set up rooms for Muslims to pray in while in school while denying Christians the same right or to use any room for any reason. And you turds applauded it.

What's hilarious is a radical Muslim would behead these coddling left loons just as quickly as they would a Christian. They are just as much infidels as anyone else. Liberals are too damn stupid to live

Perhaps. It's certainly true that many of them are de-selected by Nature, when living in conservative Islam-dominated countries.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

No, it's a relgion, and religion always follows -- not leads -- culture. However even if one were to accept your lexicographical ballet, Sharia still forbids "honor killings" as we've already laid out. That's why it persists even over the religious ban -- it's a cultural practice. And therefore, far older.

 

[Kondor3]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

No, it's a relgion, and religion always follows -- not leads -- culture. However even if one were to accept your lexicographical ballet, Sharia still forbids "honor killings" as already laid out. Try again.

I've moved beyond the narrow focus of honor killings to criticize the belief system that has so profoundly influenced such cultures and perpetuated ancient and savage practices.

Current LEGAL thinking in most of The West does, indeed, hold Islam to be a religion. Nolo contendere.

My contention here is that we need to re-examine that attribution and re-consider its validity, with an eye towards declaring it something else, not protected by existing law.

In order to deal with that cancer trying to infect our body politic.

While there is still time.

 

[Pogo]

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

No, it's a relgion, and religion always follows -- not leads -- culture. However even if one were to accept your lexicographical ballet, Sharia still forbids "honor killings" as already laid out. Try again.

I've moved beyond the narrow focus of honor killings to criticize the belief system that has so profoundly influenced such cultures and perpetuated ancient and savage practices.

Current LEGAL thinking in most of The West does, indeed, hold Islam to be a religion.

My contention here is that we need to re-examine that attribution and re-consider its validity, with an eye towards declaring it something else, not protected by existing law.

That may be hasty considering the level of abject ignorance demonstrated right in this thread about what it actually is.

And again, perhaps I wasn't clear -- religion does not "perpetuate ancient and savage practices" -- as I said, Sharia expressly forbids it (apparently not very effectively). Rather, the much-older cultural practices, BEING older and more established, persist in spite of the religious bans. So in trying to curtail a religion you're pressuring an entity that's already trying to control "honor killings". Which would seem to be the reverse of what we might like to see.

Again, such is the deep level of ignorance. The OP said "You can't take the Sharia out of the Muslim" or something to that effect -- which, if that were true, the honor killing would have never happened, since Sharia forbids it. Ignorance.

 

[Kondor3]

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

No, it's a relgion, and religion always follows -- not leads -- culture. However even if one were to accept your lexicographical ballet, Sharia still forbids "honor killings" as already laid out. Try again.

I've moved beyond the narrow focus of honor killings to criticize the belief system that has so profoundly influenced such cultures and perpetuated ancient and savage practices.

Current LEGAL thinking in most of The West does, indeed, hold Islam to be a religion.

My contention here is that we need to re-examine that attribution and re-consider its validity, with an eye towards declaring it something else, not protected by existing law.

That may be hasty considering the level of abject ignorance demonstrated right in this thread about what it actually is.

The degree to which it is comprehended by a large audience is entirely disconnected from its standing as a religion or as a hybrid and more dangerous thing.

 

[Pogo]

Pfft, Islam isn't a religion to them, only Christianity is.

Islam is a hybrid political-cultural-legal system, disingenuously cloaked in the guise of religion... a warrior's creed... saturated with bloodlust and permissions to wage war and to commit violence against un-believers and those who breach the faith... and... unfortunately for its victims... its ancient practices are still all-too alive-and-well today.

Islam is a cancer - entirely incompatible with Western culture and ideals and spirituality, and should be rejected by its transplanted Western hosts like the disease that it is.

No, it's a relgion, and religion always follows -- not leads -- culture. However even if one were to accept your lexicographical ballet, Sharia still forbids "honor killings" as already laid out. Try again.

I've moved beyond the narrow focus of honor killings to criticize the belief system that has so profoundly influenced such cultures and perpetuated ancient and savage practices.

Current LEGAL thinking in most of The West does, indeed, hold Islam to be a religion.

My contention here is that we need to re-examine that attribution and re-consider its validity, with an eye towards declaring it something else, not protected by existing law.

That may be hasty considering the level of abject ignorance demonstrated right in this thread about what it actually is.

The degree to which it is comprehended by a large audience is entirely disconnected from its standing as a religion or as a hybrid and more dangerous thing.

What is, in English?

 

[Agit8r]

And if any libs want this moved to the religion forum, that would mean they agree that this sort of radical act is connected to Islam.

No need, because it isn't a religious rite. It's a cultural one. It predates Islam by centuries. And the other monotheist religions as well. Got nothing to do with Islam. In fact Islam forbids it.

And we've done this to death, pardon the pun, many times before.

Not just monotheistic religions either. All paternalist societies have done this stuff, especially when cross-cultural romance and xenophobia are involved.

 

[Marxist]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Are you that fucking stupid? Point here is that religious freedom goes so far. Doesn't include murder, denial of rights or being allowed to marry children. You guys whine that Christians don't want to provide abortions, yet yawn when another muslim kills in the name of religion. Sad that they don't treat their own family or friends any better than other infidels when someone breaks their evil sharia law. They believe they are right in killing those who dishonor them or anyone who is a non-muslim. And when in court, some jackass lawyer will try to get them off the hook by saying it's the only way they know.

Wait a minute. For weeks your pals, and perhaps you yourself, have been arguing that religious rights trump other rights.

No we haven't you lying sack of garbage. the 1st Amendment does not protect obvious criminal acts like murder. We have objected to the fact that when it comes to religion the left bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims while denying the same or similar things to Christians. Remind us? If a Muslim refuses to bake a cake for a gay is that bad too? How about for a Jew?

New York actually set up rooms for Muslims to pray in while in school while denying Christians the same right or to use any room for any reason. And you turds applauded it.

What's hilarious is a radical Muslim would behead these coddling left loons just as quickly as they would a Christian. They are just as much infidels as anyone else. Liberals are too damn stupid to live

LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

lol, so where does the line fall on special privileges for people who want to violate the rights of others in the name of their religion?

PS, you do have a constitutional right to be served by a business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay so, constitutionally speaking, according to some of you RW'ers,

1. You can't kill someone even though you claim it's a part of your religion, but,

2. you can refuse service to a gay person or a black person, etc., by claiming it's part of your religion.

So, violating the rights of others can be legal by invoking one's religious freedom, but only in some cases.

The question is, how much violation of another person's rights is too much, when you're playing your religious rights special privilege card?

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

lol, so where does the line fall on special privileges for people who want to violate the rights of others in the name of their religion?

PS, you do have a constitutional right to be served by a business.

It falls on the side where you have actual rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay so, constitutionally speaking, according to some of you RW'ers,

1. You can't kill someone even though you claim it's a part of your religion, but,

2. you can refuse service to a gay person or a black person, etc., by claiming it's part of your religion.

So, violating the rights of others can be legal by invoking one's religious freedom, but only in some cases.

The question is, how much violation of another person's rights is too much, when you're playing your religious rights special privilege card?

Again, you don't have a right to be served, so no one's rights have been violated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

lol, so where does the line fall on special privileges for people who want to violate the rights of others in the name of their religion?

PS, you do have a constitutional right to be served by a business.

It falls on the side where you have actual rights.

That's meaningless gibberish. The right to equal treatment by public accommodations is an actual right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay so, constitutionally speaking, according to some of you RW'ers,

1. You can't kill someone even though you claim it's a part of your religion, but,

2. you can refuse service to a gay person or a black person, etc., by claiming it's part of your religion.

So, violating the rights of others can be legal by invoking one's religious freedom, but only in some cases.

The question is, how much violation of another person's rights is too much, when you're playing your religious rights special privilege card?

Again, you don't have a right to be served, so no one's rights have been violated.

Yes you do. It was established by law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and upheld in subsequent court cases.

 

[martybegan]

Why do you object to it? It's a religious practice protected by the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

Wrong, numskull. You have a Constitutional right to live. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a business serve you or provide you with birth control.

And murder is a crime that 99.999999999% of people think is "bad". And a crime like that cannot be explained away due to saying "my religion says its OK" Now something like Native Americans wanting to use Peyote? Yes, its technically a crime, but the percentage of people who actually think it SHOULD be a crime is far far far far less. THAT can be explained away by saying "my religion says its OK" because 1) Even if it is a crime, its' a victimless one and 2) many people think it shouldn't even BE a crime.