Scum asked me the same questions. Here was my answer:
I want homosexuals to have no - none - zero - special rights, and the condition to be considered a mental illness as it was until the the homosexual activists bullied to get it off the list.
No homosexual marriage, adoptions, fostering, artificial insemination, Boy Scouts, teachers, in the military, counselors in schools, no homosexual agenda stuff taught in schools, no “sensitivty” etc training anywhere. No government money, not one penny, spent to further their agenda.
As to your list, no.
Unless they’re sodomizing each other in parks, hiking trails, public bathrooms, beaches and so on - then I want them prosecuted, as they are ruining many public places for other people.
|
In answering these i will say the State has the right to make such laws, though i would rather see mercy and repentance. I also make some statement below based upon your statements that, “I believe anybody can exchange promises anytime they want to, with or without a ceremony and without interference”, based on your principal of gov, non-inteferance, and that “sodomy laws were improper and that Lawrence v. Texas was correctly decided,” and that ““I don't want the government to do a damn thing for or against homosexuals.” 1. Do you think that homosexuals should be prosecuted? Insofar as the State has a legit interest in public health, and male homosexuality is abundantly evidenced to typically result in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, then gay bars and gay bath houses should be shutdown, and prosecuted for failing to do so, and participants punished, as those who engage in prostitution. However, to be consistent, you must favor prostitution being legalized. 2. Do you think homosexuals should be imprisoned? If need be, as with any criminal act, as in violation re. the above, and in addition, for any known promotion of this practice, as being morally wrong, just as polygamy is. However, to be consistent, you must favor polygamy as well as bestiality? 3. Do you think homosexuals should be castrated? No. 4. Do you think homosexuals should be shot? No one should unless the State can provide 2 or 3 eyewitnesses, or the certified equivalent, and false witness incur that same penalty their false witness did. While again, i would rather see mercy and repentance, i uphold the right of the State to make practicing homosexuality a capital crime, esp., due to its inherent immorality, esp., as i a recent case, if they knowingly passed on AIDS. 5. How much government do you want? Far less than we do, without anarchy, but if souls are not sufficiently controlled from within they must be controlled from without. It is the job of the evang. church to affect the former, while the State must do the latter. Thus a weak church results in a growth of government. And if the basic morality of the gov. is perverse, and itself in not much governed by Biblical morality, the people of that nation shall suffer. Your error is that the gov. should not make laws regulating moral such behavior, but while it is indeed dangerous when it does, if its moral view, as in often the case in Communism, however no govs can escape making such, as all legal and educational system rely on moral beliefs, and though it may not mandate formal adherence to a sect, it will favor one over the other. In a Democracy, the people decide what that “civil religion” shall be, and America has been more blessed insofar as it held to Biblical morality, and the gov. was right in recognizing that, even if it need not enforce theological views. And as prohibiting polygamy and bestiality and homosexually is only beneficial to society, the prohibition is justified, as should be recreational drug use, when known, without snooping in peoples houses, unless promoting it. Robert Winthrop (May 12, 1809 – November 16, 1894), and Speaker of the House from 1838 to 1840, and later president of the Massachusetts Bible Society, explained that, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet. Even the Unitarian “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the “laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity.” Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, (http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann) dreaded “intellectual eminence when separated from virtue”, that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited. (William Jeynes, “American educational history: school, society, and the common good,” p. 149, 150) Sir William Blackstone, whose authored extensive Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769 became the preeminent legal authority that were admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers, 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.... Massachusetts General Laws, section 272 orders,
|
I believe anybody can exchange promises anytime they want to, with or without a ceremony and without interference”, based on your principal of gov, non-interference, and that “sodomy laws were improper and that Lawrence v. Texas was correctly decided,” and that “I don't want the government to do a damn thing for or against homosexuals.”
..to be consistent, you must favor polygamy as well as bestiality being legalized.
Your error is that the gov. should not make laws regulating moral such behavior, but while it is indeed dangerous when it does, if its moral view, as is often the case in Communism, is unjust, however no govs can escape making such, as all legal and educational system rely on moral beliefs.
..without snooping into peoples houses, unless they are promoting it.