Posted on 06/23/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
The Texas Republican Party gives a whole new meaning to the word conservative.
The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state).
“We oppose the legalization of sodomy,” the platform says. “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
[Snip]
In addition, the platform says that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”
It also states that homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in public schools and “family” should not be redefined to include homosexual couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Absolutely.
I think the Texas GOP is vying for the “Oh, come now.” award.
I'm not seeing a statement regarding "in the public commons" here.
It appears that the Platform is disregarding the Right of Private Property in some of these position statements.
You can't do that. Trespass is a Sin, as much as is pornography.
If my neighbor wants to look at dirty pictures (of consenting adults) in his basement, that's a Sin -- but if he's not violating anyone else's Person or Property, then that's between him and God.
But if I vote to Trespass upon his Property in order to stop him from looking at "dirty pictures" (or playing Kamasutra Twister with his wife, whatever), then I'm committing Sin.
I cannot and will not vote in favor of the Sin of Trespass.
As previously mentioned, I do agree with the platform statements against special privileges and "family rights" for homosexuals. I would agree with Dr. Eckleburg that homosexual adoption should be discouraged, or outlawed, by appropriate social and legal measures.
"Loving your neighbor" does not mean Trespassing upon his Property.
I pulled up the State of Georgia’s Sexual Offense laws. Outside of California, I’m sure most States have the same type of public decency/sodomy laws. Tell me which of these are “harmless” and should be allowed in the privacy of one’s own sodomy chambers without government interference.
Bestiality?
How about incest?
Statutory rape?
How about some good ole fashioned necrophilia?
I know, how about pimping your neighbors daughter out (as long as she consents of course).
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex06.htm
You’ve fell prey to the libertarian mindset which says: It’s MY body and MY property, I can do ANYTHING I want with it as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (the old “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” argument).
Such simplistic thinking. Libertarians can only see directly in front of them (just to the ash at the end of their doobie), they have no idea the injustices they’re perpetrating upon society.
But it does mean holding them up to the same standards that God holds you up to. Moral behavior has no boundaries.
man/girl was ok?
Right.
And if you want to Trespass upon a neighbor's property to threaten them with harm and imprisonment for committing moral offenses which the Bible does not specify as CIVIL Crimes, then you are a Trespasser, and therefore an Enemy of God and His Laws of Private Property, and must be opposed as the SELF-Righteous Christ-Denier that you are choosing to be.
And I say that in genuine Christian Love -- Love which preaches a healthy advocacy of BIBLICAL Law, against Self-Righteousness.
Whatever happened to individual liberty?
The Apostle Saint Paul identifies Five Great Harms which it is the Government's Divine Duty to punish under any and all circumstances: Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and "Covetousness" (see Old Testament Laws regarding covetous Abuse & Malfeasance).
AND THAT'S IT.
If you want to enforce all the Old Testament Moral Laws which Saint Paul does NOT specify as Civil Crimes under the New Testamental grant of Government Authority, howzabout this one:
Blasphemy. Definitely one of the biggies, Biblically.
Judaism, by denying that Christ is God, commits Blasphemy against God.
You going to outlaw Judaism next, pal?
Either stake your claim and take the logic of your argument to its full extent, or else admit you're wrong and go read some more Biblical Theonomy.
You obviously haven't read enough.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished. - Jesus (Matt 5:17-18)
Last time I checked, heaven and earth are still here..
Last I checked, Church and State were still here, also.
Presbyter and Magistrate, both.
Whom are ordained to different roles -- and to enforcing different Tables of the Ten Commandments, according to New Testament guidelines for church and civil government.
In the Apostolic Blessing to Civil Authority that Saint Paul gives the Magistrate in Romans 13:1-10, he makes mention only of the Civil Law, the Second Table of the Ten Commandments. The Moral Law, the First Table of the Ten Commandments, is left to the teaching office of the Presbyter.
Good. Sodomy should be illegal. Or at the very least, communities should have the right to make it illegal if they see fit. Sodomy should NEVER have been enshrined as a fundamental right. That’s just idiocy.
"No! Never even been to Texas".
"I did my medical training in America in the 90s and then moved to South East England. My wife is half-British half-American. We are moving back to the States, probably permanently, later in the year".
I see, so, you're not from Texas, not an American, not constitutional law scholar, and in all probability not a Christian or even a conservative.....In fact you're just another european pervert propaganda organ grinder monkey..
What, pray tell, did they teach you in med school about the consequences of homosexuality?
>> There is a propaganda war going on here and it’s scary to see how many so-called “conservatives” buy into the lies. Don’t believe the hype.
I’m with you on most everything you said.
However, I would regard acts that I have seen defined as “sodomy” as “sex”. Having never done any particular research, I am honestly unsure of the exact definition of the term — but my understanding is that it includes most non-vaginal and non-manual sexual acts (oral, etc.) ... I am attempting to be as non-vulgar as possible here.
I would define these acts as “sex” — and I think most people, Christian and non-Christian alike, would as well (though Bill Clinton would not). Would you say that a person that has engaged in only oral sex is a “virgin”? Typically engaging in these acts with someone to whom you aren’t married would be regarded as “fornication”, and doing so while you are married to someone else would be regarded as adultery/ sexual infidelity.
I also don’t think these acts are a sin when undertaken consensually by a heterosexual married couple. The song of solomon is pretty explicit and pretty libertarian within the context of marriage ... the theme appears to be, enjoy each other to the fullest extent possible.
SnakeDoc
Well said.
“What, pray tell, did they teach you in med school about the consequences of homosexuality?”
A fair amount! It’s a medical horror story. Could you explain what that has to do with the article we are discussing? Assuming the article is accurate, the story is about a proposal by the GOP in Texas to reintroduce sodomy laws which would ban certain adult sexual activities. I didn’t say such a move would be unconstitutional, simply unwise and unpopular.
And what’s with the European “troll” stuff? I am an American citizen with fairly mainstream views. I’m pretty sure if you were to take a poll among American conservatives about outlawing sodomy, banning all pornography, and closing down lap dancing clubs, most would tell you that even though they don’t approve of such things, they don’;t want the criminal law to interfere in such a way. In fact, that is the general view on this thread.
Exactly. Under the Tenth Amendment, the States have every right to outlaw these activities if they see fit. While the Constitution enumerates a very limited number of Federal Powers (and I think it would be awful neat if we respected those restrictions), it takes a much more expansive view of State Powers.
The question is whether or not the States can exercise such legislative powers, but whether or not they should. To my way of thinking, the State Legislatures should have to meet a much higher bar of legal necessity to regulate my neighbor's Private Property (of which I am not the Owner!), than to regulate the Public Commons (of which, as a taxpayer, I do consider myself "Part Owner", and reserve the right to vote my moral convictions on what I want to permit in "my" Public Square).
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.