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

[roamer_1]

John 3:16, perhaps.

No... To believe in HIM requires repentance... Go and sin no more....
Yeshua does not offer a license to sin.

[INVAR]

John 3:16, perhaps.

Is that what it says in your version?

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

[DiogenesLamp]

@Right_in_Virginia

An absolutely insane position.
'Small Government' cannot be achieved without regulating sex. The entire time we had small government, sex was regulated harshly.

*Just* in terms of no-fault divorce and single-parent homes with bastard children... Leave the homos out of it for a minute... Just standard fornication and adultery make our burgeoning welfare state necessary.

Indeed, if you want small government, regulating sexual behavior is needful. Big government requires and endorses sexual 'freedom', because the resulting welfare state is what gives it power.

And don't think for a minute that the government is not regulating the bedroom right now - It's failure to regulate is a regulation in it's own right. When government assaults marriage, and allows virtually anything but, that government has made a moral choice - And we are living with the consequences.

So in fact, your entire premise is foolishness.

Good post.  I too pointed out that the creation of bastard children is a problem for all of society,  and one that used to be kept to a minimum by regulating behavior in the bedroom. 

[aligncare]

You gonna put people in jail for holding hands or kissing? A "small government" conservative!

What a joke.

Never thought I’d be agreeing with you.

Conservatives hate big government except when they don’t.

In other words, progressive democrats want government enforcing their issues, and like two sides of the same coin, conservative republicans want government enforcing theirs.

[ABX]

Dear Government;
It is not your business.
It is not your money.

Sincerely,
The US Citizen.

[Smokin Joe]

Including a whole bunch of heterosexual folks..... and including celebrities (See:  Charlie Sheen).

It's a contagion-via-sex disease.  What used to affect mostly gays is spread also to non-gays.  And for some reason, government refused to "regulate" that public health risk activity.  Odd, that.

Homosexual men 44-86 times more likely to be infect with HIV:  "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm)

A mere 1.5 times more likely to contract a given disease is considered significant, medically (unless it is the correlation/causation? between breast cancer and abortions), but 44 to 86 times more likely isn't considered reason enough to try to put a damper on such behaviour, especially when that infection is likely to tap the public coffers (cost: 600K to 750K for medical services before the patient expires) even without Obamacare which guarantees that taxpayers will pick up the cost of not just the medical expenses, but insuring for them when payout is guaranteed. One trillion dollars and counting...

[Jazzhead]

I cannot even believe this thread and I knew I shouldn't have clicked on it.

While I'm hoping that Judge Moore has modified his position (stated 12 years ago) I still cannot believe that so many people want to go back to the Dark Ages regarding homosexuality.

There has always been homosexuality way back in history.  It does not hurt straight people at all.
And don't come back at me about aids.  This attitude existed well before aids. 

God loves homosexuals .... and adulterers, although he doesn't care that much for adulterers.

If anyone here actually wants to put the government in charge of what's legal and what's not in matters of sex, that person needs to see a shrink.

Do you even realize what avenues to abuse that would open to the government?

Oh, my God !!

I am sick reading this thread.

Agree, Emjay!   If the usual suspects want to advocate for Christian shariah, fine, but no conservative should, as a matter of public policy, be in favor of the government imprisoning adults for engaging in consensual relationships.   

[roamer_1]

Good post.  I too pointed out that the creation of bastard children is a problem for all of society,  and one that used to be kept to a minimum by regulating behavior in the bedroom.

That's right. This 'You can't be for small government and for government in the bedroom' argument is beyond absurdity - It's a damn lie.

The entire time we had a small government, the only 'sex' sanctioned by the government was marriage (read Old Skool marriage between 1 man, and 1 woman, for life).

I will submit that it is imperative to return to that model, or ever growing government will be the result.

[aligncare]

It was,  for the vast bulk of this nation's existence.

Meaningless point.

Laws change as science and technology changes, and as societies embrace change. Some things that were illegal before, now are not, and others things that were legal before, now are illegal (slavery the most notable example).

[RoosGirl]

Meaningless point.

Laws change as science and technology changes, and as societies embrace change. Some things that were illegal before, now are not, and others things that were legal before, now are illegal (slavery the most notable example).

So science and technology have proven that homosexuality has had no impact on our society?

[DiogenesLamp]

I cannot even believe this thread and I knew I shouldn't have clicked on it.

While I'm hoping that Judge Moore has modified his position (stated 12 years ago) I still cannot believe that so many people want to go back to the Dark Ages regarding homosexuality.

This is the Dark Ages regarding homosexuality.   This sickness is now celebrated and embraced.   

There has always been homosexuality way back in history.  It does not hurt straight people at all.
And don't come back at me about aids.  This attitude existed well before aids. 

Homosexuals have always been rife with diseases.  Before it was AIDS, it was syphilis,  gonorrhea,  herpes,  chlamydia,  hepatitis B and C,  and so forth.   They also have a tendency to commit suicide and particularly violent murders,  as well as molesting little boys when the opportunity presents itself.   


The bible mentions two separate accounts where homosexuality was accepted in a community,  and in these accounts,  the males of the village come forth and try to rape male visitors to their cities.   

The Nazis were the group that evolved out of a homosexual club,  and they were rife with homosexuals throughout their ranks,  especially in the SS-Totenkopfverbände,  in which particularly the homosexual members of those units would cause the most horrible and depraved tortures of people in the concentration camps.   I'll not go into the details.    Suffice it to say that the Nazi leadership deliberately sought out homosexuals for many of these positions because they recognized that homosexuals would do things that normal people would not do.  They were absolutely merciless and sadistic.   



Most of the world's serial killers were homosexual,  and though we've only been  keeping records about serial killers in the last hundred years,  I have little doubt that it likely has always been so.   

The Cambridge Five was a homosexual group of spies that gave British secrets to Russia.   


No,  there were plenty of reasons for societies to have the attitudes they have always had about homosexuals.   Homosexuality constitutes a diseased and mentally ill portion of society,  and the downside of tolerating it usually overwhelms the upside of doing so. 

God loves homosexuals .... and adulterers, although he doesn't care that much for adulterers.

I don't know of any other examples in the bible where God burns to death two cities just to wipe out Adulterers,   and allows the combined armies of Israel to destroy a third city because of adulterers.   


 God apparently has a particularly vicious streak when it comes to cities that embrace homosexuality,  at least so far as I can remember from the Bible. 

[roamer_1]

Meaningless point.

It is not a meaningless point - It is THE salient point.

Laws change as science and technology changes, and as societies embrace change. Some things that were illegal before, now are not, and others things that were legal before, now are illegal (slavery the most notable example).

Your laws and science do not negate human behavior. There has never been a licentious people that lasted long - In fact, it can be argued that said licentiousness is a bellwether of a nation in quick decline.

You cannot have small government and a licentious people. It is impossible. Diametrically opposed purposes.

[DiogenesLamp]

Never thought I’d be agreeing with you.

Conservatives hate big government except when they don’t.

In other words, progressive democrats want government enforcing their issues, and like two sides of the same coin, conservative republicans want government enforcing theirs.

There are tasks that the government should do,  and their are tasks that the government should not do.   I am in favor of them doing what is within their mandate,  and refraining from doing what is not within their mandate.   


This notion of opposing all governmental action is ludicrous.   As Edmund Burke pointed out so long ago:


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. "

[DiogenesLamp]

Agree, Emjay!   If the usual suspects want to advocate for Christian shariah, fine, but no conservative should, as a matter of public policy, be in favor of the government imprisoning adults for engaging in consensual relationships.

You keep using that word "consent."   For most of this nation's existence, homosexuals could not consent because homosexuality was a condition of insanity.   The law did not recognize their consent no more than it would that of other asylum inmates. 

[DiogenesLamp]

That's right. This 'You can't be for small government and for government in the bedroom' argument is beyond absurdity - It's a damn lie.

The entire time we had a small government, the only 'sex' sanctioned by the government was marriage (read Old Skool marriage between 1 man, and 1 woman, for life).

I will submit that it is imperative to return to that model, or ever growing government will be the result.

This. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Meaningless point.

No it isn't.   It is an example of how far we have changed from where we began,  and not for the better.     

Laws change as science and technology changes, and as societies embrace change.

Homosexuality was removed from the list of Mental Health diseases not because of science,  but because armies of homosexuals would show up at the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association and threaten them with death.    After years of such abuse,  the members felt it was safer for them to just capitulate than it was to fight this battle by themselves.


It had not a d@mn thing to do with science,  or with the desires of society.   It had to do with violent and threatening hordes of mentally ill people intimidating people into doing what they wanted.


Same as today. 


The Gaystapo has always behaved like the Gaystapo.   That's why so much of the original Gestapo had homosexuals running it. 

[aligncare]

I cannot even believe this thread and I knew I shouldn't have clicked on it.

While I'm hoping that Judge Moore has modified his position (stated 12 years ago) I still cannot believe that so many people want to go back to the Dark Ages regarding homosexuality.

There has always been homosexuality way back in history.  It does not hurt straight people at all.
And don't come back at me about aids.  This attitude existed well before aids. 

God loves homosexuals .... and adulterers, although he doesn't care that much for adulterers.

If anyone here actually wants to put the government in charge of what's legal and what's not in matters of sex, that person needs to see a shrink.

Do you even realize what avenues to abuse that would open to the government?

Oh, my God !!

I am sick reading this thread.

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.

[musiclady]

LOL.  If only that were the worst thing he could "catch".

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. 

[Bigun]

This.

@DiogenesLamp

Welcome back!  You've been missed!

[kevindavis007]

There are tasks that the government should do,  and their are tasks that the government should not do.   I am in favor of them doing what is within their mandate,  and refraining from doing what is not within their mandate.   


This notion of opposing all governmental action is ludicrous.   As Edmund Burke pointed out so long ago:


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. "

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?  How is that Conservative?

[roamer_1]

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.

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.

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.

[Smokin Joe]

Agree, Emjay!   If the usual suspects want to advocate for Christian shariah, fine, but no conservative should, as a matter of public policy, be in favor of the government imprisoning adults for engaging in consensual relationships.

Let's put it this way. I don't think the 'boys' in the joint need an infected population of 'girlfriends'.
But while passing a law won't stop some people from doing what they do, it will discourage some from behaviour which has been shown to be destructive to themselves and society. That's an improvement, imho.

If you can advocate laws about smoking cigarettes or DUI or any of a host of other 'risky behaviours', then certainly your overweening compassion for humanity could advocate laws discouraging a lifestyle which kills one in five of the people who participate.

[INVAR]

If the usual suspects want to advocate for Christian shariah, fine, but no conservative should, as a matter of public policy, be in favor of the government imprisoning adults for engaging in consensual relationships.

But you are good with advocating government punish and imprison adults for refusing to celebrate and promote deviant sexual behavior.

[mountaineer]

Is that what it says in your version?

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

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

[ABX]

No it isn't.   It is an example of how far we have changed from where we began,  and not for the better.     

Homosexuality was removed from the list of Mental Health diseases not because of science,  but because armies of homosexuals would show up at the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association and threaten them with death.    After years of such abuse,  the members felt it was safer for them to just capitulate than it was to fight this battle by themselves.


It had not a d@mn thing to do with science,  or with the desires of society.   It had to do with violent and threatening hordes of mentally ill people intimidating people into doing what they wanted.


Same as today. 


The Gaystapo has always behaved like the Gaystapo.   That's why so much of the original Gestapo had homosexuals running it.

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?

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

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?)