In my never so humble opinion, homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle. I'd LOVE to say that but it's not p.c. Whoops! Silly me! I already said it!
Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee
ICK! POOH! PPPFFFFFFTTTTT! Does that mean you've BEEN there? Icky! Go shower, NOW! Orders from Gramma!
I'm not sure, but I think that SADs are a lot more honest with each other than they are with us. erizona may have a good tactic by quoting them.
Shalom.
Shalom.
Shalom.
Arg, how do you think the leftists would like this suggestion: Hypothesis: We should teach only academic subjects in our schools while children still have an open mind. A: Wow, what a concept!
Leftist: What is an 'academic subject' anyway? Isn't that just an overhyped euphamism for the mind control practiced by the church? Are you trying to breach the wall of separation between church and state? It's just another example of what kind of NAZIs you fanatical right-wingers are that you would want to CENSOR open and honest debate in our kindergarten classes.
;)
Shalom.
GSA(P)
Have a great weekend.
Shalom.
In my never so humble opinion, homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle. I'd LOVE to say that but it's not p.c. Whoops! Silly me! I already said it!
Those countries that have made homosexuality illegal, and punishable by law, are countries where the citizens have only the rights given to them by the government. The government can do anything they want at anytime with no constraints. I want no part of any country like that.
I want you to think hard and long about the following
proof you are ignorant of the world around you.
Sodomy has always been against the law in the United States and your alarmist speech is without substance and lacks rational thought. It is however as twisted as you have to make it in order to defend the indefensible. The Bible which is 100% accurate and true, tells us that you are no better than the sodomites you defend and will be held accountable for your folly. You live in a country that does have sodomy laws and this country has never been as you have tried to describe countries with sodomy laws. You are so intent to have you're childish toy that in your selfishness you disregard reality altogether.
One cannot be a sodomite, or defend them and be right.
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)." (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
Crimes against nature as defined by natures GOD.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
If you think homosexuality is not against the law you had better think again. The following laws are on the books and are valid even this day. This very hour.
Criminal sodomy laws in effect since 1791:
Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672).
Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719).
Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981).
Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975).
Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785.
New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in
New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7.
New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792).
Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977).
South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect since 1868:
Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867).
Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865).
Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858).
California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865).
Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868).
Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866).
Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893).
Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892).
Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867).
Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869).
Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845).
Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855).
Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860).
Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856).
Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840).
Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860).
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860).
Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846).
Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859).
Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857).
Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856).
Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866).
Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194]
Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45.
New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815).
New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847).
New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859).
North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855).
Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874).
Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872).
South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837).
Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858).
Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860).
Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779).
Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868).
West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868).
Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorrent, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
FF578
Rev. John Rankin runs a ministry called the Theological Education Institute. He has written a three volume book called First the Gospel, Then Politics. He emailed this letter to me today. It's an op-ed piece that he has written. I thought you would enjoy reading it. Go here to find out more about John's ministry.
When the debate concerning same-sex marriage is embraced, there is a painful silence at certain key junctures. Or to put it another way, the issue is advanced politically by certain advocates, who then do not want a full, intelligent, gracious and honest dialogue. On February 11, before the Judiciary Committee at the State Capitol in Hartford, Connecticut, I led off a panel that opposed two bills currently being considered to advance same-sex marriage or facsimile. These bills have been conceived in the direct shadow of the "civil union" legislation already enacted in Vermont.
As part of my testimony I told a story concerning my postgraduate studies at Harvard Divinity School. I was taking a class in feminist ethics. During lunch one day, three women from my class sat down with me. One said, "You know, John, for an evangelical, you're a nice guy." She then continued, with an unsolicited and previously untouched subject. She said that she and her two friends were lesbian, and that every lesbian they knew had been physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused by some man in her youth, usually by a live-in boyfriend to mom, a stepfather or some other adult male who had access to the household.
I remember praying in my spirit at that exact moment, "Dear God above, has the church heard this testimony, or do we merely condemn?" Now, the statement of these lesbians at Harvard is not a statistical claim for all lesbians. But they lived in an academic and social milieu in which they knew very many lesbians from around the country. Thus, it was an honest anecdote, the substance of which is known to many male and female homosexuals alike.
I believe the desire for same-sex marriage is often rooted in the partial or total loss of a childhood in which a married father and mother loved and respected each other as complements and equals, and accordingly, loved their children. The answer to such loss or abuse is not to redefine marriage downward, but to strengthen marriage to its best possibilities, to a mutual fidelity between a man and a woman that lasts a lifetime. What child does not naturally want a loving mommy and loving daddy at home?
Only a small portion of avowed homosexuals favor same-sex marriage. Yet for those who do, I believe they are often seeking some sort of family structure in which they are safe from abuse, an ersatz replacement for the family they lost, or never had, in part or in whole. And I can only respect the desire for such safety. Nonetheless, we are male and female, and all children need a father and a mother to ensure their healthiest development. It is not right to change our laws to suit the real pain of adults who suffered such a deprivation as children. The proper course is to strengthen true marriage. The research is clear: Children without a married mother and father at home fare more poorly than children from intact families. And it is hard enough to address the many needs here, especially when the single parent household is so often a result of male irresponsibility and/or promiscuous lifestyles.
What this means is that same-sex marriage, and the raising of children in such households, only perpetuates a cycle of brokenness. Thus, for the sake of all people, marriage between a man and a woman in mutual fidelity is the goal at which society should aim. To lower our sights and legally codify same-sex relationships is to redefine marriage downward in a cycle of multiplying pain across the generations.
I gave my testimony in a packed hearing room, and there were two overflow rooms utilized as well. Most of the main hearing room was filled with same-sex "marriage" advocates (with identifying yellow stickers), and most of these advocates were women. I faced the Judiciary Committee, seated at a desk, with the audience behind me. When I mentioned the testimony of the three Harvard lesbians, there was an audible gasp across the whole room. Friends of mine in the audience later told me that the gasp was visibly registered on the faces of these women advocates, women who then literally held their breath until I moved on to the next portion of my remarks.
What does this say? It points out the deep pain that so many homosexuals deal with, and I had dared to touch that pain. The lesbians in the hearing room were caught off guard with such an accurate diagnosis, and fearful of its further exploration. And why do I risk the touching of this pain? Because this is the nature of love, of loving God and loving my neighbor as myself. Biblical ethics celebrate unalienable rights for all people -- life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Biblical ethics celebrate the image of God in all people -- the universal pursuit of peace, order, stability and hope; to live, to love, to laugh and to learn. But these ethics also root the fulfillment of the image of God in the nature of marriage as one man and one woman in mutual fidelity, from the order of creation -- given by the same Creator in whom unalienable rights are uniquely located. Thus, to touch such pain, is to identify reality and encourage true healing.
None of the media, which gave extensive coverage to this hearing, quoted this portion of my testimony. So I composed an op-ed piece for the Hartford Courant. They accepted it, but at the last moment pulled it. Well, that is their prerogative -- they can publish what they please. The real issue is much deeper: Why the silence on this matter? What is the depth of the painful gasps unearthed by the public recognition of such abuse? I have addressed forums on controversial subjects on many university campuses. Yet homosexual advocates are the least likely to embrace any sort of public dialogue.
For those of us who affirm the positive social good of man and woman in marriage, and thus say no to homosexuality, how do we conduct ourselves in the face of such a debate? We must genuinely desire not one inch of greater liberty to speak what we believe than we first commend to those who disagree with us. This is the Golden Rule in political context. And if we are met with a wall of silence, what does that tell us? In 18 years of public policy ministry, I have directly communicated with very many avowed homosexuals. Many of them struggle with and would like to overcome such a propensity, and for those homosexuals who are not public about it, I believe the ratio is higher yet. When silence by homosexual advocates is the response, we know that the soul has been deeply touched, and it shows the rest of society, and especially closeted homosexuals, that the pain is at least reasonably understood. And from there, a shared humanity can be better embraced in pursuit of the common good.
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.