‘Homosexual Conduct Should Be Illegal,’ Roy Moore Said in ‘05 Interview

[musiclady]

I believe the question was where it says God loves sinners. I never said nor implied God loves sin.

Thanks for pointing that out, @mountaineer .  I was about to step in and clarify the difference between loving the sinner and permitting/condoning the sin.

God DOES love homosexuals, as He loves you and me, who are also sinners.  While our salvation requires repentance, Scripture clearly says that he loved us enough to die for us "while we were yet sinners."

What He HATES is what they do, and how it harms them and the society we live in.

[DiogenesLamp]

Seconds before seeing your post I was having the same internal dialogue. The same government that according to conservatives screws up everything it touches, is the same government trusted by some people on the right to regulate proper sexual coupling partners(?)

I think Iran does that.

Actually that is inaccurate.   People have lazily got into the custom of saying "the government"  when they get into these discussions,  without making it clear which government it is to which they are referring.   


Federalism has not a D@mn thing to do with Homosexuality.    It is not an issue with which the Federal Government was ever mandated to deal in any sort of capacity of which I can think.    It is,  and always was a State issue,  and it was the States that had laws prohibiting immoral behavior among their citizens.   


What most originalists want is for the Fed Government to mind it's business and stick with Federal matters,  and leave the states to decide for themselves how they want to regulate (if they do)  the morality of their citizenry.  (All Laws are regulated morality.)   

It is the Federal Government (through the courts)  that have intruded into the domain of the states,  and that is where this problem started. 


In the laboratories of Democracy known as the 50 states,  the idea always was that if you didn't like how one state administered it's laws,  you were free to move to a different one more to your liking. 

Forcing us all into Liberal conformity is an usurpation of the power that rightly belongs to the people.

[Rivergirl]

So Matt Drudge.  You got in bed with Breitbart.  How's that working out for you.
For Shame

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

Welcome back!  You've been missed!

Thank you.   We'll see how it works out this time around.   

[massadvj]

For the record, I don't believe the government has any business regulating consensual sexual behavior between adults.  But I still don't think Moore's comments will cost him any votes.  I happen to know that both homosexuals in Alabama were already planning to vote against him.

[RoosGirl]

I dunno................. going around singing "There is nothing like a dame" can be pretty disgusting......    :dx1:


btw, excellent job in this debate @RoosGirl .  You have been right on every point. 

@musiclady Much appreciated.  I'm glad my "angle" on the discussion made sense to more than just me. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

So let me get this straight. You want the Government (Fed, State, or Local) to peep into people's bedroom to see if they are performing the right kind of sex? 

I want the Feds to focus on issues for which the Federal Government was created,  such as defense of the nation and regulation of interstate commerce and intra state legal disputes,  etc.   


I want the States to do what their people wish without trumped up Federal interference.   


This concept is known as "Federalism",  and it was the original blueprint for how this system was meant to function.   

How is that Conservative?

How  is letting a Federal Oligarchy interfere with consent of the governed conservative?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Indeed, the answer is to remove the federal superstate from the decisions regarding these things and put the authority back on the local level, and in the various states, where it belongs.

Exactly what I just said in my last response above.   

It is liberalism coming from on high that is the problem.  It is HIGHLY consistent with Conservatism to reverse the liberalism served up by the fed, and restore authority to the locality.

And I would submit, that left to their own devices, the people at the local level would end this 'sexual revolution' in it's tracks.

That is absolutely what I think would happen as well.   

[INVAR]

I believe the question was where it says God loves sinners. I never said nor implied God loves sin.

No.  The quote you responded to was this one:

What scripture did you pull out of your areas that says God loves those who practice sin?

[truth_seeker]

Indeed, the answer is to remove the federal superstate from the decisions regarding these things and put the authority back on the local level, and in the various states, where it belongs.

Just so I have this clear. You would propose local patrols, for enforcement of sexual practices within the community?

Here is a fairly recent example, from London, not Iran.

Sharia patrols
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the vigilante patrols. For state-run religious police in Islamic countries, see Sharia police.

A group of vigilantes calling themselves "Muslim patrols" patrolled the streets in East London from 2013 to 2014. The individuals were young Sunni Muslim men, members of an organisation that called itself the "Shariah Project".[1] Early in 2013, videos of their activities, filmed by members of the patrol, were uploaded online:[2] these showed hooded members confronting passers-by and demanding that they behave in an Islamic way.[3] They targeted prostitutes, people drinking alcohol, couples who were holding hands, women whom they considered to be dressed immodestly, and harassed others whom they perceived as being gay.[4][5][6] Five men were arrested in January 2013 as part of an investigation into the gang.[7] In December 2013, three of them plead guilty to affray, and were subsequently given jail sentences.[8]
The Muslim East London Mosque community condemned the patrols as "utterly unacceptable" [9] In response to the 'Muslim Patrols', the far-right organisation Britain First has established 'Christian Patrols'.[10]

[roamer_1]

For the record, I don't believe the government has any business regulating consensual sexual behavior between adults.

Then embraced the burgeoning welfare state, the result of not regulating 'consenting adults'.

[Bigun]

Just so I have this clear. You would propose local patrols, for enforcement of sexual practices within the community?

Here is a fairly recent example, from London, not Iran.

Sharia patrols
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the vigilante patrols. For state-run religious police in Islamic countries, see Sharia police.

A group of vigilantes calling themselves "Muslim patrols" patrolled the streets in East London from 2013 to 2014. The individuals were young Sunni Muslim men, members of an organisation that called itself the "Shariah Project".[1] Early in 2013, videos of their activities, filmed by members of the patrol, were uploaded online:[2] these showed hooded members confronting passers-by and demanding that they behave in an Islamic way.[3] They targeted prostitutes, people drinking alcohol, couples who were holding hands, women whom they considered to be dressed immodestly, and harassed others whom they perceived as being gay.[4][5][6] Five men were arrested in January 2013 as part of an investigation into the gang.[7] In December 2013, three of them plead guilty to affray, and were subsequently given jail sentences.[8]
The Muslim East London Mosque community condemned the patrols as "utterly unacceptable" [9] In response to the 'Muslim Patrols', the far-right organisation Britain First has established 'Christian Patrols'.[10]

100% STRAWMAN!! Total BS!  He didn't say ANYTHING remotely like that and YOU know it!

[DiogenesLamp]

So if I understand correctly, you believe promoting homosexuality should be illegal and we should have strong laws against it and homosexuality should be classified as an illness that should be treated and cured?

I think the tolerance of it should be left up to the states,   but I think it should still be classified as an illness.  So far as treatment goes,   just because you can't cure something doesn't mean it isn't an illness. 


I read an interesting claim last week.   There was a piece of research that indicates that the arrival of the birth control pill may have stimulated a surge in homosexuality among male offspring of women who have used the pill.   The Article contended that by altering their hormonal balance with synthetic chemicals,  the women created a permanent indocrinal condition that subsequently increased the chances of homosexual offspring.   


They said that mouse experiments done in the 1980s revealed that they were seeing increasing levels of homosexuality in the male mouse offspring of the females dosed with these synthetic hormone chemicals,  and the effect was even more pronounced in the grandchildren of these dosed females.   


The gist of this is that we may have created a Thalidomide-like damage to offspring that we didn't realize at the time was happening.    It could explain why the incidence of homosexuality has seemingly exploded all across Western civilization. 

Do you also believe that there should be laws against sodomy for both men and women?

I believe that should be up to the people of the various states to decide.   Those that believe in Judaism or Christianity will likely reflect their choices in the law. 

The problem is homosexuality is considered normal in the west and we are being forced to accept it. We are strongly against this (as in legally against it?)

It is being considered normal because there has been a non stop propaganda campaign emanating from all the broadcasting systems and entertainment sources in the nation for the last 60 years. 


If we didn't have that constant stream of propaganda,   the public wouldn't be buying this nonsense. 

[truth_seeker]

For the record, I don't believe the government has any business regulating consensual sexual behavior between adults.  But I still don't think Moore's comments will cost him any votes.  I happen to know that both homosexuals in Alabama were already planning to vote against him.

Yeah, and I heard there were three adulterers, two polygamists, five alcoholics, a single pedophile, and seven drug addicts.

No problema. With such little to worry about, the Christian Sharia Patrols should wipe out all sin, in the first weeks of his Senate term. 

[Emjay]

Exactly.  And how would a victim of 'bad blood' get justice?  Could they even prove that the infusion they received caused their HIV condition?  I doubt it.  Political Correctness and the hospitals CYA would prohibit any justice in those cases.

Who is 'they' in this claim.  There is no way blood banks could know that the donors are homosexual unless the donors tell them.

It doesn't 'show.'

So, I believe that blood is tested regardless of how the donor looks or what he or she says.

Let's not go all nutzoid, people.

My sister was a consistent blood donor because both she and I are O-Neg which is desirable.  She had cancer at one time and, after that, she couldn't donate.  Not sure why.

[Emjay]

The stupidity is out of control here.

[ABX]

I think the tolerance of it should be left up to the states,   but I think it should still be classified as an illness.  So far as treatment goes,   just because you can't cure something doesn't mean it isn't an illness. 


I read an interesting claim last week.   There was a piece of research that indicates that the arrival of the birth control pill may have stimulated a surge in homosexuality among male offspring of women who have used the pill.   The Article contended that by altering their hormonal balance with synthetic chemicals,  the women created a permanent indocrinal condition that subsequently increased the chances of homosexual offspring.   


They said that mouse experiments done in the 1980s revealed that they were seeing increasing levels of homosexuality in the male mouse offspring of the females dosed with these synthetic hormone chemicals,  and the effect was even more pronounced in the grandchildren of these dosed females.   


The gist of this is that we may have created a Thalidomide-like damage to offspring that we didn't realize at the time was happening.    It could explain why the incidence of homosexuality has seemingly exploded all across Western civilization. 




I believe that should be up to the people of the various states to decide.   Those that believe in Judaism or Christianity will likely reflect their choices in the law. 






It is being considered normal because there has been a non stop propaganda campaign emanating from all the broadcasting systems and entertainment sources in the nation for the last 60 years. 


If we didn't have that constant stream of propaganda,   the public wouldn't be buying this nonsense.

I apologize, I made a bit of a mistake in my last post you responded to. I forgot to cite my source. I was actually quoting Iran's Human Rights minister Mohammad Javad Larijani on their laws.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/mar/14/iran-official-homosexuality-illness

[driftdiver]

Is that what it says in your version?

Love the sin, because the sin is what identifies them?

@mountaineer @INVAR
I won't quote the verses because we're not supposed to do that here but...

Jesus died for all of us.
We are all sinners
Jesus said love the sinner but hate the sin.

[driftdiver]

The stupidity is out of control here.

@Emjay
So people that dont agree with you are stupid?

[XenaLee]

Who is 'they' in this claim.  There is no way blood banks could know that the donors are homosexual unless the donors tell them.

It doesn't 'show.'

So, I believe that blood is tested regardless of how the donor looks or what he or she says.

Let's not go all nutzoid, people.

My sister was a consistent blood donor because both she and I are O-Neg which is desirable.  She had cancer at one time and, after that, she couldn't donate.  Not sure why.

Read it again.  I would think it is rather obvious who "they" is.   People that received blood transfusions that ended up giving them HIV, of course.

Who is going nutzoid here?  Certainly not you.   

[XenaLee]

@Emjay
So people that dont agree with you are stupid?

Apparently.... stupid or "nutzoid"....lol.

[roamer_1]

Just so I have this clear. You would propose local patrols, for enforcement of sexual practices within the community?

What fetid nonsense.  Of course I support law being closer to the local ground, as much as possible.

What makes your scary sharia soldiers possible is again, a federal state removing the moral sense of the people ON PURPOSE. There is no moral vacuum, and where the Judeo-Christian ethic has been rooted out, something else will grow.

And the state is helping that along - Protecting the Mohammedans, while stepping upon the Christians who would do the same thing in a far more civil manner.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just so I have this clear. You would propose local patrols, for enforcement of sexual practices within the community?

Is it so hard to remember how the States used to do things?  So far as I can remember,  the most that would happen along this line was that Police officers who's beat included hotels and motels,  would check with the front desks of these establishments to make sure there were no incidents of cohabitation.   

In those days,  the front Desk clerks would cooperate in preventing adultery from going on in their establishment because not only were people more moral in general back then,  but it was also illegal to commit adultery,  and people more respected the law in those days. 


Nobody peeped into bedrooms to see if adultery was going on so long as they did not receive any complaints in that regard.   


The point here is that society did not openly embrace and tolerate it,  they officially condemned it,  though if people wanted to do it,  they did not have to worry about morality patrols pinching them in the act,  unless they were very foolish.   


By establishing such laws and such actions against the breakers of these laws,  Society set the standard,  and as a result of setting the standard,  more people adhered to it,  even though some lesser number would not. 

[RoosGirl]

The stupidity is out of control here.

Since you are a big complainer about people being nasty and making personal comments that aren't nice, you should probably remove your comment.

[driftdiver]

Yeah, and I heard there were three adulterers, two polygamists, five alcoholics, a single pedophile, and seven drug addicts.

No problema. With such little to worry about, the Christian Sharia Patrols should wipe out all sin, in the first weeks of his Senate term.

@truth_seeker
Sharia eh, so Christians are killing people who don't worship Jesus?   Are they stoning people?

What a vile horrible thing to say