Your problem isn't with me, it's with Thomas Jefferson.
Posted on 05/19/2003 6:01:32 AM PDT by SJackson
Well noted...I'll have to use that one too!
Your problem isn't with me, it's with Thomas Jefferson.
"Quoted from Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography, Public Papers: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS.
Section XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilege of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."
If you have engaged in sodomy--and you are going to have a truly difficult time convincing me, or anyone else for that matter, that you have never engaged in either sexual activity which defines "sodomy" with either a lover, or a spouse--then you are equally as guilty as homosexuals by Jefferson's definition, and you qualify as a sodomite yourself.
"Sodomy laws do not punish people for being created differently, but for how they behave."
Not in the case of Texas and other States where engaging in the act of sodomy is criminalized for some, and permitted for others, I don't recall either the Bible, or Thomas Jefferson saying that sodomy was OK with someone of the opposite sex, as a matter of fact, in the quote you yourself provided, Jefferson explicitly denounces these actions "with man or woman".
Laws need to apply equally, to all citizens if we are to avoid the sorts of challenges being routinely raised by gay activists. If State legislatures enact Laws directed at controlling the behavior of one specific segment of society, these laws will be brought to Court on Constitutional grounds, and they will continue to fall on Constitutional grounds. As one law is challenged and that challenge upheld, the next law will be challenged. Our obsession with involving the government in the act of condemning the private behavior of those whose lifestyle choices we do not approve of, will bring about the victory of those we wish to condemn.
If you want to make sodomy illegal, then make it illegal for everyone and quit giving the gay lobby something to wave around and shout out "discrimination".
By the way, nice try at diverting from the true point of the Declaration, I am not buying into it.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"...the pursuit of happiness. While engaging in homosexual behavior may not be your idea of pursuing happiness, it is to a homosexual. That you don't believe that is really of very little consequence to the law.
Do I believe that homosexuality is a sin in the Eyes of God?
Yes I do.
Do I believe that the government should be involved in deciding whether two men (or two women) sharing an apartment requires scrutiny by the authorities?
No.
The actions/behavior of homosexuals affects no one other than themselves, or at least no more than the actions of single welfare mothers who indiscriminately engage in unprotected sex, and give birth to half a dozen welfare babies, on their way to contracting one of many deadly STD's that are out there right now.
I have no problem with Jefferson, but you brought him up, so I wondered how you fared in his light.
I guess by your answer that you are in fact a sodomite, and specially in your case, I would fear sodomy laws.
I'd like to buy an argument, please.
Shalom.
"Whether I or anyone else has, or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the States retain the power to regulate sodomy." --- Toothy
Ooohhh!!!!
Double talk!
My favorite.
Jefferson did not try to raise his opinion on what to do about sodomites to the level of law.
This is the classic libertarian error and the reason I am not a libertarian.
Shalom.
You'll have to ask Ryan White whether he agrees with you or not.
Most of those distinctions don't hold water. The "age of consent" is one of those fluid things that make the entire "consensual" argument useless. Another is that parents regularly impose behaviors on their children to which the children don't consent. It is considered good parenting. In point of fact, many in the pervert realm are trying to create scientific arguments that the best way to introduce a young person to erotic activity is to have an adult teach him/her. They are arguing this is good parenting.
WRT pets, there are many times I call my dog when she wouldn't otherwise want to come. But she obeys. Is that consensual? If not, is it an abuse of my dog? Training my dog to live well in my household might not have been her idea, but it is generally accepted as a good practice. Someone into bestiality might argue that it is a net positive to teach his dog to have sex with him. If the dog didn't complain, would it be consensual? Would it be for the good of the dog since it is a requirement to integrate into that home?
The big problem with the "consensual" argument is that it is arbitrarily defined by us. It is not "unalienable" and therefore not supportable. Our rights need to be based on "unalienable rights" or our Republican experiment is useless.
Shalom.
Pet peeve time:
Mute means silent. Moot means meaningless. Points are moot, but rarely mute.
Shalom.
Are you a peeping Tom?
Shalom.
I know that doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but it should to these others.
Are our "unalienable" rights only those which are enumerated in the Constitution?
I've noticed that even Howie Carr, on his radio show, who used to emphasize the homosexual aspect and even had Michael Rose on, now refers to "pedophile priests" molesting "little boys." I don't know why the change. (Though I could hazard a guess.)
OK, let me get this straight. You think Jesus was telling us to encourage those who sin to keep sinning? We should work to eradicate laws against adultery, prostitution, drug use, child rape, etc., etc.? That's your interpretation of the story of the woman caught in adultery?
Shalom.
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.