Posted on 05/02/2009 3:35:50 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of political correctness have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.
The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by Americas Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals, Blackstone stated:
IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....
I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [that horrible sin not to be named among ChristiansDM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deedDM]. Which leads me to add a work concerning its punishment.
THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishmentDM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).
Here was the law of Englandcommon lawunder which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly politically correct by todays standards.
How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army. The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued General Orders from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcoms Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismissd the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (George..., underline in orig., emp. added).
Observe that the Father of our country viewed sodomy (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) with Abhorrence and Detestation.
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; Sodomy Laws..., 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was deathincluding New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated dismemberment as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).
Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer isthe Bible. Traditional (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Evenot Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, Gods attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).
In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. The warning issued by God to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).
Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.
Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.
Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.
George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).
Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
Miller, Dave, et al.(2003), An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality, Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.
Robinson, B.A. (2003), Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior, [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.
Sodomy Laws in the United States (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This is a common liberal tactic. Extrapolate the opposition's position to a hyperbolic extreme and present that as the only (and usually unacceptable) alternative.
Frankly, when social pressure was against open homosexual behaviour, I think there was less homosexuality, and far fewer people being confused by the predators out there.
Some of us remember when normal couples rarely (if ever) kissed in public. Holding hands with your girlfriend or spouse was about as far as it got if you were 'respectable'.
One did not have to be black to be a slave in the US, nor were all blacks slaves. Freemen did not have the same rights, granted, but they were not slaves, and some of them were owners. The issue is far different than the (black) racists present it (primarily in an attempt to justify 'reparations').
In addition, indentured servitude, usually undertaken to work off a debt, was just short-term (usually seven years) slavery, and an apprenticeship little better.
"I just threw up a little in my mouth." - George Washington, May 17, 1983.
*It is entirely possible that I flat made this up.
Thanks for that great post. Since it opens by discussing how this abomination has manifested in our society during the past 50 years, i think the following is also relevant:
“In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant.”
I am telling you one of the arguments used and it is persuasive. In spite of my understanding that homosexuality is a sin and has serious consequences for a society that not only condones it but glorifies it, I still would not equate it with murder or robbery. These are the reasons we sometimes look like fools. Best not to make equivalencies like that - they don’t work.
In the meantime, many approved of slavery and while slavery was never condemned in the scriptures, it is very clear that the Commandments themselves would prohibit the “owning” of another human, and in particular, the treatment of such as substandard or, even worse, treatment that would not even be humane for an animal. We are commanded to love our neighbor but many seemed to have no issue with slavery.
It is a much more useful argument than yours. While I can hold strong to my views, I am not naive about the positions the other side takes and some of the points that they make and that some of them are, in fact, substantive, and attractive to many who consider themselves equanimous.
My apologies, but there is no good reason to answer that question. I don’t need to go down a list of sins a rank them from worse to worser..
I’m with you, 100%!
Be Ever Vigilant!
However, slavery is an OK alternative to execution or starvation.
“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness” ... Surely your not going to advocate sex weith women on their periods?? Pigs are disgusting animals and eating pork is extremely unhealthy.
you are absolutely correct.
If privately practiced by consenting adults, I would not equate it with murder or robbery, either, but in its present form, the almost unavoidable indoctrination of children robs them of something which cannot be restored: their innocence.
You may feel that would happen anyway, but when I was a child (I'm a great-grandfather now), there was almost no mention of homosexuality nor the other spectra of deviant sexual behaviour save that a person was a "pervert" and to be avoided--in order to keep children away from those who might be inclined to attempt sexual molestation.
Now, and the feed is not limited to strictly deviant behaviour, deviant behaviour is broadcast as "entertainment". More can be seen in single commercials on television (especially cable) than in a month's programming in the 50s or early 60s. You can't even watch the news without being bombarded with gays this or gays that.
Yes, we have all been robbed, whether you realize it or not. It has taken three generations of the coarsening of our culture to reach this point, and while I am no prude, any culture which fails to protect its moral fiber and that of its young will inevitably fail.
A novel use included one of my ancestors purchasing a Jesuit priest at the priest's behest, making the priest property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Common Law during the Protestant Reformation in Maryland (ca. 1732). Otherwise, the priest would have been hanged, as were many others during that turmoil. The priest later purchased his freedom back after things had settled down.
My point is that while most slaves were agricultural labor within the US, and most were of African origin or ancestry, even within that framework the horrors of Uncle Tom's Cabin (a novel) were perpetrated on relatively few.
The willful damage of those who were property, an investment upon which their masters wished to show a profit (otherwise why purchase slaves to begin with?) would have run contrary to sound business practices. Slaves were often held back from the most dangerous jobs because of the investment they represented--which is why so many Irish were teamsters, longshoremen, powder monkeys, and the like as their boss had no vested interest in their well being, only in their labor, unlike slaves who were owned.
Again, I am not trying to either justify the institution, nor support its practice, just to say the broad brush with which slavery in the US has been painted is an inaccurate one.
While we might have been best off to never have had the institution, we are all unarguably better off for having abolished it.
Oh you and I are on the same side in this argument, sir. I can assure you. As for talk of homosexuality, the first time I heard mention of this kind of thing was when I was in junior high and a friend told me she saw two girls kissing in one of our large parks. My initial thought was, “Why would they do that?” Even when my friend told me, I still didn’t GET IT. Duh. I just had no concept that a woman would have the same kind of sexual attraction for a woman that normal women have for men.
Thank God I lived in a time of innocence. And you are absolutely right about being bombarded. It has gotten to the point where it is just insidious and pervasive. If one were to figure out the population of homosexuals (gay and lesbian) based on the numbers we see in the media, you’d think that 30 percent of our population was homosexual.
So, in summary, I agree with you totally and that is why I do not even have cable television nor intend to have it and watch very little of the regular programming. Very little.
4l8r
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
This is history. This is how the founders of our country viewed homosexuality. Any libertarians who want to play pretend that their hedonist philosophy has anything to do with the Constitution or the founding principles of our country is either too doped up to know anything, or a liar, or both.
If anyone wants on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.