Tennessee county beats hasty retreat from call to ban homosexuals

Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2004 | BILL POOVEY

[tomball]

The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution Thursday reversed its call to ban homosexuals.

Rhea County commissioners took about three minutes to retreat from a request to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature. The Tuesday measure passed 8-0.

[breakem]

You are disingenous and I will not post to you again. Read your own postes. Criminal convictions and open fronication were not what we were discussing. Fornication in and of itself is not illegal in the US. You can add all the special circumstances, but we honest posters call that "spin." I call it dishonest. Toodles!

[AntiGuv]

As an idle aside, do you realize that the UCMJ sodomy prohibition is currently being challenged in court (it's at the DC Court of Appeals)? The only reason I bring that up is to wonder whether your position will change in the event that its overturned, or if instead you merely use that as a crux to support an otherwise weak argument?

[narses]

So you support deviant sexual activity being made legal EXCEPT where people have 'voluntarily' submitted to authority, right? So getting MARRIED ought to count, no? So why should ADULTERY be legal? Absent 'shotgun' weddings, aren't married couples in the same place (using your odd logic) as volunteers? And how about draftees? Or 'volunteers' whose term is 'extended'? Ought they get a "pass" from the UCMJ laws regards sex?

[narses]

Abortion was made 'legal' by a weird court decision. That didn't change my opinion that the SIN of abortion is ALSO a crime. Why would another weird court decision affect my opinions?

[AntiGuv]

I already answered this question above. Consult my earlier answer because it has not changed.

I have no problem with using moral precepts in devising the force of law. The law is nothing but codified morality. I have a problem with enshrining the incorrect moral precepts into law.

[narses]

Toodles. Revel in your retreat from the debate, clap your hands for conceding that fornication, adultery and sodomy are felony acts under the UCMJ and the United States Code. Enjoy NOT responding to me, I will, I assure you.

[sinkspur]

"You are. You want what is sinful to be illegal. "

How is that being a HYPOCRITE "deacon"?

You don't think being drunk in one's own home (a sin) should be illegal. That's hypocritical, based on everything else you want to criminalize.

[AntiGuv]

In that case, perhaps you should stop holding forth the UCMJ statute as a trump since your position is not based on its existence.

[narses]

" I have a problem with enshrining the incorrect moral precepts into law. "

So for those of us who are Catholic, you would concede that we are correct, given our moral precepts, in enshrining the very items into the law you want left out of the law, yes?

[narses]

Where is being FAT either a sin or a crime "deacon"?

[narses]

Huh?

[MississippiMan]

You're in favor of laws banning homosexual activity?

You bet I am. It's unnatural, it's more detrimental to society than many other actions that are criminalized, and it propagates one of the deadliest diseases we've ever seen. And there's nothing unusual about laws banning homosexual activity; they're common throughout the land and have been for a long time. The SCOTUS decision that struck down the Texas version was a sad day.

It's amazing how much of the cultural ground homosexuals have already taken. Even right here on FR, in this thread, one can sense a reluctance to speak out in favor of such laws. Twenty years ago, there would've been no such reluctance. Probably not ten years ago. Now, they've managed to spread their message of depravity so successfully, so deeply, that they've stifled the natural tendency of many to even speak out against it.

MM

[AntiGuv]

So for those of us who are Catholic, you would concede that we are correct, given our moral precepts, in enshrining the very items into the law you want left out of the law, yes?

Of course I would not. Catholicism is not moral precept that should be enshrined into law, nor is it in this nation.

[AntiGuv]

If the UCMJ statute is irrelevant to your position, why do you keep bringing it up? Seems like a diversionary rhetorical tactic to me, but perhaps I misunderstand your purpose.

[AntiGuv]

Opps! That should read "Catholicism is not a moral precept that should be enshrined into law"...

[Torie]

Even right here on FR, in this thread, one can sense a reluctance to speak out in favor of such laws

I have no reluctance in denouncing any such laws that remain on the books, and think they should all be repealed as a policy matter. SCOTUS has struck down most of them, with the military code before the courts apparently. I suspect even here on FR it would be close to an even split as to whether the participants favor criminalizing sodomy as a policy matter. The "reluctance" you sense is in fact active disagreement with your point of view.

[timm22]

So you support deviant sexual activity being made legal EXCEPT where people have 'voluntarily' submitted to authority, right?

Basically, yes.

So getting MARRIED ought to count, no? So why should ADULTERY be legal? Absent 'shotgun' weddings, aren't married couples in the same place (using your odd logic) as volunteers?

I don't really think it is appropriate for the state to get involved in marriages. But, let's assume that it is involved in certain cases. For example, people who are not religious and want a judge to preside over their wedding and make their commitment in the form of a contract. In a case like this, where sexual faithfulness is part of their commitment to each other, I would support punishing adultery on the grounds of breach of contract.

But to extend such a punishment to all marriages, regardless of state involvement or the terms of the commitment, I would say no.

And how about draftees? Or 'volunteers' whose term is 'extended'? Ought they get a "pass" from the UCMJ laws regards sex?

I don't believe in the draft either. Draftees shouldn't fall under the UCMJ. If a volunteer knows that involuntary extension is a possibility at the time of his enlistment, they should not get a pass. They are still volunteers in that situation.

I should probably add that most of the provisions of the UCMJ discussed on this thread make little sense to me, and I think they should be done away with. They are rarely enforced, and I don't see any need for them.

[nmh]

"A person is not the same thing as what a person chooses to do."

Huh? A person IS what he/she does.

[Torie]

Well, there is nothing illogical or per se wrong with advocating that certain moral precepts of a religion be enshrined in the law. But in this instance, I doubt it is the official position of the Catholic Church that consenual adult sodomy should be a crime. If it is, a lot of priests need to go to jail if caught.

[narses]

"Catholicism is not moral precept that should be enshrined into law, nor is it in this nation."

What 'moral precept' is 'enshrined' into law in our nation and why is that and/or your 'moral precept' more important than mine?