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 ...
Sorry if I offended you. You obviously are not aware of the sexual practices considered normal and healthy among most consenting adults in the country today. As Casey Stengel, the old baseball manager said, you can look it up.
And I feel sorry for you too, my misinformed and sheltered friend. I shudder to think what would happen to your sensitive mind if you became aware of what todays teenagers consider the equivalent of the old fashioned good night kiss! Subject closed.
Most people do not realize that perhaps the principle issue, above all others, because it effects all others, facing our nation is the drastic moral decline.
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” Samuel Adams
“The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” - Samuel Adams
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” John Adams
These men knew human nature and designed our constitution and government accordingly. Only a few reads of their words illustrate how far we have strayed. Far too many have been lured into immorality or apathy by the wiles of evil, designing men and women who lust for power and vice and want our liberty destroyed. But we can take it back during any election cycle if the American people simply return to those fundamental moral principles (which are fundamental Christian principles) John Adams spoke of and rise up and kick the frauds and internal enemies out and send them packing. I pray God in Heaven that 2010 and 2012 are such years.
really, I;ve been away for some time and just saw this.
so you think men shagging men is alright do you?
well I’m from England and moved here and I don’t think it is right , nature intended us to be a man and a woman having babies,
if two of the same sex are having sex it is for pleasure and that is it.
They should not be given special rights, job or protections.
they want it their bedroom business then they should keep it in the bedroom.
do us a favour hey and if you are moving here with that perverted idea then please don’t bother coming here, it is that kind of view which has been destroying the Uk
nearly forgot but what the hell is half Brit and half American,
My kids were born here therefore they are American, my wife is American and now I am American through the legal process.
to come on a conservative website and advocate this perverted lifestyle or even defend it is not conservative and therefore makes you a troll, am I right?
been away and saw your post,
I’ve replied to him and he can stay over there with those views, I came here form the Uk TO GET AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF CRAP AND I’ WILL BE DAMNED IF I WILL STAND BY SEEING THIS GREAT COUNTRY GO THE SAME WAY AS ENGLAND
Not sure what post you are responding to. We are not discussing rights or protections for homosexuals, but a proposal by the GOP in Texas to reintroduce sodomy laws (also to ban pornography, close lap dancing clubs, etc)
Most people on the thread want to protect traditional marriage but don’t think that the other proposals are sensible or would be enforceable these days.
(BTW - My wife’s Dad is American, her Mother is English, but she was born in the US and has American nationality, not dual nationality - but calls herself half-British when asked, not sure why, I think her mother prefers it that way!)
Communities DO have the right to make it illegal if they see fit. The fact that the Supreme Court declared sodomy laws unconstitutional doesn’t make them so. The SC stopped bothering with the text of the Constitution a long time ago!
But should they make it illegal? The problem is that making sodomy illegal again without re-criminalising abortion, contraception, adultery, fornication, pornography, etc. would create a legal situation that is inconsistent. For better or worse, most people in the West have bought into the notion of sexual autonomy, and are unlikely to find such laws tolerable these days.
The law is a very blunt instrument. In the old days, societies had other non-legal means to keep people on the straight and narrow - condemnation, ridicule and ostracism used to work quite well.
The Texas sodomy laws were challenged and appealed all the way to the USSC [Lawrence vs Texas] by homosexuals, strip clubs are nothing but a front for whorehouses (prostitution) and pornography is nothing but entertainment for morally insane perverts. Since you think its so "mainstream" I guess you'd approve wholeheartedly if your sister or daughter or niece was exploited by pornographers? Or perhaps you just approve of them exploiting other folk's daughters, sisters and nieces for your own self gratification... disgusting..
Ref. post #52
I see your point...Thank you for setting me straight.
I don’t “approve” of any of these things, Harry. I just don’t think that criminalisation is an option right now - that’s all.
Take the whole issue of pornography. In the space of less than a generation it’s moved from the fringes of society to the mainstream, and it’s now everywhere. It’s because attitudes have changed. Most people still disapprove of pornography (or say they do) but are more prepared to tolerate it, as long as there are laws to protect minors. That is why many obscenity prosecutions fail, even for material that is extreme and frankly disgusting.
That’s where we are right now, whether we like it or not. All this may change again in the future, the way it’s changed so many times in the past. Social history is cyclic.
Amen brother. Thanks for sharing true words of wisdom Jeff!
No, actually the attitudes haven't changed at all, morally corrupt tyrannical liberal atheist activist judges are forcing they're views onto society. Perverting the original intent of the US Constitution, they removed God from the public square and crammed their perverted "mainstream" degeneracy down the throats of the American people.
Let me ask you this, do you think the founders included 'pornography' vulgar art 'urine jesus' and the like as a form of constitutionally protected forms of free speech?
“Let me ask you this, do you think the founders included “pornography” vulgar art “urine jesus” and the like as a form of constitutionally protected free speech?”
No, I don’t think so. But, ultimately, it’s juries who decide what is or isn’t obscene, and the Founders would certainly be horrified by what modern people are prepared to tolerate.
True story:
Some years ago I was part of the jury for an obscenity trial here in the UK. The English definition of obscenity is “material that tends to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those who are likely to view it.”
The film in question was vile and disgusting beyond belief and I’m not going to bother you with the details. After we’ve finished watching it, by which point one of the female jurors was on the verge of throwing up, Defence Counsel stood up, smiled sweetly at us, and said: I know you were shocked and sickened by what you saw, but were you “depraved and corrupted” by it?
What do you do in such circumstances? Against our better judgement, we had to say No and acquit. Did we contribute to the coarsening of society? Probably. But the way these obscenity laws are phrased puts you in an impossible position.
We're talking about letting the citizens of Texas make their own rule of law, enforcing said rule of law, and telling the federal government (and british trolls) to go get bent "weather they like it or not" as the libtards like to say..
AND THAT'S IT.
Ah yes, a Christian libertarian who says "If God didn't SPECIFICALLY speak against it, then it shouldn't be dealt with by civil government." (I've dealt with more than my fair share of your kind). God didn't mention recreational drugs, light up the bong! God doesn't mention pornography, break out the Playboy magazines! Speaking of porno:
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.
The question is: should the civil magistrate enforce God's laws when it comes to pornography? The late great R.J. Rushdoony thought so: "the link between pornography and revolutionary totalitarianism is a necessary one. The rise of totalitarianism has always been preceded by moral anarchism... the politics of pornography is a moral anarchism whose purpose is revolution, a revolution against Christian civilization. . . . Certainly new and clearer legislation [against pornography] is *necessary and urgently needed*. . . we need and must have sound legislation" (_Law and Liberty_, pp. 18-20.
Let's look at the "harmless" sin of pornography shall we?
I found these statistics while blogging in a Seattle Times blog regarding a Kent couple that webcammed their 4 year old daughter while raping her.
Every second - $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography
Every second - 28,258 Internet users are viewing pornography
Every second - 372 Internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines
Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States
(2006 statistics, it's probably more now).
Link to pornography statistics
Pornography promotes a hedonistic lifestyle that is often highly addictive, harmful to marriages and influences anti-social and sometimes criminal behavior. In the eyes of most women pornography is degrading and highly offensive.
30 years of data connects porn with child molestation 10/2/2009
Morality in Media (MIM) has posted a report online showing a relationship between adult pornography and child molestation.
The report covers various sources -- news articles, court cases, studies, books, and congressional testimony -- published from 1980 to present. Among their findings -- child molesters use adult porn to "groom" their victims; many perpetrators progress from viewing adult porn to viewing child porn; and children imitate with other children the behavior they view in adult porn.
MIM spokesman Bob Peters tells OneNewsNow he hopes to awaken people who are really earnest in their efforts to curb sexual exploitation of children, but who turn their backs on the adult pornography problem.
"...[I]t's kind of counter intuitive, but a lot of people who sexually molest children also look at adult pornography," he states. "They use it for their own arousal.
"They also often use it in the actual crimes," he continues. "And there have been social science studies, surveys of people who commit sexual crimes against children, and during the questioning they'll be asked about the role of pornography -- and many of them will say that they used adult pornography shortly before the crime."
Peters acknowledges that while adult porn is not the full explanation for the crime, it is certainly part of it. Polls over the past decade also show public support for Morality in Media's stance that pornography is harmful.
Link to porn and child molestation
Tell your...ahem..."neighbor" to just say NO! to pornography.
“Easy to see that it’s impossible for anything to “deprave and corrupt a significant proportion” of brits..”
Do you see a difference between being offended by something and not wanting to see it on the one hand, and being depraved or corrupted by it on the other? The point simply was, the wording of anti-pornography laws makes it difficult to secure convictions.
And if anything, the situation is even worse in the United States, with obscenity prosecutions being very rare.
“We are talking about letting the citizens of Texas make their own rule of law...”
And who said they can’t do that? Do you read before you post? I (and several others) have argued that sodomy laws etc. are constitutional, whatever the Supreme Court may have said about them.
Tell them, I shall.
Trespass upon their Private Property to do it, I shall not.
Rushdoony's not bad. But Nymeyer's far better. You haven't read Nymeyer, have you? I thought not.
However, since you cite Rushdoony, I would remind you that the old Armenian Patriarch did favor outlawing Blasphemy, as well.
So, Don't dodge the question, FRiend:
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.
Answer the question.
There is no description of sodomy in the Song of Solomon.
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.