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

[Suppressed]

I would much rather fight such things right here, rather than 3000 miles away. Here, I can fight it.

School lunches as a brilliant example...

I'd rather not have the intrusion at all!

[Smokin Joe]

I'd rather not have the intrusion at all!

To jump in, we all would rather not have the intrusion, but when it comes out this way from DC there isn't a thing we can do about it. People from elsewhere are micromanaging our lives, and we can't say anything except to ignore it.
If it's local, we know who said what, we can, as a community get them to back off if they are wrong, as long as the community doesn't want the intrusion.
You can move away from it if you have to.
But usually, it is someone from the Federal Government who shows up with a solution for which there is no problem, and they'll solve it, even if we don't have it, and at great expense, usually at a detriment to our way of life. Not even moving to another state will fix that; it's everywhere.

[Jazzhead]

We aren't worried about Doug Jones come December.

You should.   Even Trump supported his opponent; he knows the importance of retaining firm control of the Senate.   Moore's a vanity candidate  -  my Dem friends are chuckling with glee this morning.   

[Jazzhead]

Peeping in on folks and watching what they do in their bedroom is plain creepy!  Voyeurism is treated as a crime based on sexual deviancy ... so Jazz ... you tell me ... do you really think anyone is advocating watching what others do in the bedroom?

All I know is that the Republican nominee for Senate from the great state of Alabama is on record as saying that homosexual conduct should be illegal.  So does the Taliban. 

Now I realize that Moore's religious fascism represents no threat to the rights of homosexuals in this country.  But he does represent a threat to GOP control of the Senate.   

[Smokin Joe]

But he does represent a threat to GOP control of the Senate.

As does any Conservative who gets elected. 

[Neverdul]

I believe that all sex should be illegal and regulated by the government.

Unless it is between an adult married man and his adult female wife (his 1st wife only, unless he remarried because his first wife died in horrible accident and his 2nd wife, a virgin, can have more children plus take care of the ones he’s already got), and of the same race, and they are at least 18 years old (or 14 in WV), and the intercourse is expressly for the purposes of procreation, and only in the “missionary position” – no weird Indian Karamel Sentra yoga positions stuff, and not too loud, and only one orgasm by the woman per session and by session, I mean week, and no oral stimulation of any kind, and no “French” kissing or biting or licking of any kind, no scarves or masks, no dirty talk, no toys, no role playing (no he can’t proclaim himself King of The North and she can’t pretend to be the Mother of Dragons), no laughing during or after unless either the husband or wife told a really funny and very clean joke, nothing smutty like that ventriloquist guy Jeff what’s his name.

This is how it was when Jesus wrote the Bible 4,000 years ago when The Flood killed off the dinosaurs and in plain American for all Christians and our Founding Fathers and the Pilgrims to read and the way it still should be now.

 

[TomSea]

But he does represent a threat to GOP control of the Senate.

As do a number of do-nothing Senators. Once again, we see the Senate do nothing about healthcare and likely to see Obamacare set in stone come September 30.   

[Jazzhead]

 



Why should their relationship be respected as a matter of law?   The law has no need to take notice of their relationship.   They will have no descendents for which the law will have to designate inheritance,  and anything in the way of their property could be addressed by contract law.   They will not make any new taxpayers to pay for the law,  or soldiers to defend the law,  and so the administrators of the law do not need to encourage their "union"  at all.

No one's asking for the law to "encourage" homosexuality; it's how God made some folks, that's all.   What I've long advocated for is basically two things - for the state to afford homosexuals the equal protection of the law,  and to encourage their responsible behavior.  So many Christians spout their condemnation of homosexuals, but the real sins are adultery and faithlessness.   My neighbors who recently won the right to marry have been faithful to one another for almost two decades;  in that same period I don't even want to think about how many of my friends and colleagues  have gotten divorced. 

I respect monogamy and loyalty,  whether the couple is gay or straight, Christian or otherwise.     

By applying "Marriage"  to their relationship,  you undermine the recognized foundation of most marriage in this nation;   Religion.

What undermines religion and the stability of families is adultery.   I respect anyone who marries and makes it work for the long term.  It's not easy.  Whether they marry in the sight of God isn't what's important - it's the sincerity and sanctity of the commitment the couple makes to each other.       

The Dominant religion of this nation,  and the one that underpinned marriage in it for the vast bulk of it's existence,   recognizes homosexuality as an aberration. 

Then the "Dominant religion" concedes that God makes mistakes.   I reject that.   

That religion is the only thing that keeps us from each other's throats.  Undermine it,  and there will be much eventual bloodshed when people no longer recognize the other things it teaches,  such as tolerance and equality.

Love of God is one thing.  Obsession with religion and the dogma that encourages bigotry and intolerance?  No thank you.   I left the Church for a reason - it FAILS to teach tolerance and equality.     

  The human way of viewing God is to believe him infallible,  and if it is demonstrated that he is wrong about something,   the "spell"  which constitutes belief is broken. 

Then why do so many Christian believers divorce?   Why do they condemn as sinful homosexuals who remain faithful and true to each other?   

 

We've been through periods of history where people turned from God and looked to science for answers.  "Science"  gave us Eugenics,  and Eugenics gave us all too predictable horrors.   


All the atheist based systems have given us huge body piles and much suffering of humanity by those so unfortunate as having had to endure it.   

I don't disagree.   Science doesn't have all the answers.  I retain my faith in God and Jesus Christ, even if my ass is no longer in the pew on Sunday.   

Giving homosexuals "marriage"  is effectively pulling on yet another thread which will unravel religion as a dominant form of belief in this nation,   and thereby accelerate our descent into something much worse than what we have now. 

  I disagree.  The state's recognition that homosexuals can enter into lifetime commitments of fidelity and mutual caring is something I applaud, even if the religious dogmatics conclude such good folks as irredeemably sinful.   

I have the right to do what I regard as in the best interest of protecting my children and their children's children.    I see that as holding the restraints on the baser nature of society together,  and for that reason I don't want a bunch of pointless old queens pulling on the threads which bind this already shaky alliance of disparate peoples together. 

We all want to see a better world.  May we someday realize it.   

[TomSea]

Of course, no one has been elected Senator yet, a lot of good this "conservative" will do, even if he doesn't get that far.

Though, it might be as accomplished as what we see out of Senator Rand Paul and others.

[Smokin Joe]

Of course, no one has been elected Senator yet, a lot of good this "conservative" will do, even if he doesn't get that far.

Though, it might be as accomplished as what we see out of Senator Rand Paul and others.

It might be amazing what Conservatives could accomplish if there just weren't so many Liberals in the GOP.

[Jazzhead]

It might be amazing what Conservatives could accomplish if there just weren't so many Liberals in the GOP.

Or feckless libertarians like Rand Paul. 

[Smokin Joe]

Or feckless libertarians like Rand Paul.

McCain, Murkowski, Graham, Collins have been plenty, and that's just part of the problem.

[txradioguy]

McCain, Murkowski, Graham, Collins have been plenty, and that's just part of the problem.

Thankfully one of the GOPe is not going to run again...Bob Corker.

[Bigun]

Thankfully one of the GOPe is not going to run again...Bob Corker.

That's almost as good a bit of news as the Moore win last night IMHO! 

I know for a FACT that many in Tennessee have had it with the likes of him!

[XenaLee]

No one's asking for the law to "encourage" homosexuality; it's how God made some folks, that's all.   What I've long advocated for is basically two things - for the state to afford homosexuals the equal protection of the law,  and to encourage their responsible behavior.  So many Christians spout their condemnation of homosexuals, but the real sins are adultery and faithlessness.   My neighbors who recently won the right to marry have been faithful to one another for almost two decades;  in that same period I don't even want to think about how many of my friends and colleagues  have gotten divorced. 

I respect monogamy and loyalty,  whether the couple is gay or straight, Christian or otherwise.     


What undermines religion and the stability of families is adultery.   I respect anyone who marries and makes it work for the long term.  It's not easy.  Whether they marry in the sight of God isn't what's important - it's the sincerity and sanctity of the commitment the couple makes to each other.       


Then the "Dominant religion" concedes that God makes mistakes.   I reject that.   


Love of God is one thing.  Obsession with religion and the dogma that encourages bigotry and intolerance?  No thank you.   I left the Church for a reason - it FAILS to teach tolerance and equality.     


Then why do so many Christian believers divorce?   Why do they condemn as sinful homosexuals who remain faithful and true to each other?   

 


I don't disagree.   Science doesn't have all the answers.  I retain my faith in God and Jesus Christ, even if my ass is no longer in the pew on Sunday.   

  I disagree.  The state's recognition that homosexuals can enter into lifetime commitments of fidelity and mutual caring is something I applaud, even if the religious dogmatics conclude such good folks as irredeemably sinful.   



We all want to see a better world.  May we someday realize it.

Oh bullshit.  So now you're even blaming God for homosexuals??? 

And .... the libs/lefties damned sure as hell ARE encouraging homosexuality (and transgenderism).  They're teaching it in schools to children as "normal".  It's being pushed and presented in pretty much every show on TV now as "normal". 

But I'm not surprised to see you spouting this, yet more, BS.

[Sanguine]

Now that Moore has won (Yaay!) can this thread just die? 

[Bigun]

Thankfully one of the GOPe is not going to run again...Bob Corker.

Sen. Bob Corker Announces Retirement One Day After Breitbart Reports on His $3 Million Swamp Deal

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/26/sen-bob-corker-announces-retirement-one-day-after-breitbart-reports-on-his-3-million-swamp-deal/

[txradioguy]

That's almost as good a bit of news as the Moore win last night IMHO! 

I know for a FACT that many in Tennessee have had it with the likes of him!

Let's just hope that they aren't so fed up with the likes of Corker that someone like Harold Ford, Jr. decides to jump back into politics and win the seat.

[Suppressed]

To jump in, we all would rather not have the intrusion, but when it comes out this way from DC there isn't a thing we can do about it. People from elsewhere are micromanaging our lives, and we can't say anything except to ignore it.
If it's local, we know who said what, we can, as a community get them to back off if they are wrong, as long as the community doesn't want the intrusion.
You can move away from it if you have to.
But usually, it is someone from the Federal Government who shows up with a solution for which there is no problem, and they'll solve it, even if we don't have it, and at great expense, usually at a detriment to our way of life. Not even moving to another state will fix that; it's everywhere.

I reject the notion that having neighbors enforcing our bedroom habits is a big step up from DC keeping its nose out.

[driftdiver]

I reject the notion that having neighbors enforcing our bedroom habits is a big step up from DC keeping its nose out.

@Suppressed
So you're saying society shouldn't have in put on the behavior of its citizens?

[Smokin Joe]

I reject the notion that having neighbors enforcing our bedroom habits is a big step up from DC keeping its nose out.

You don't have to go so far to kick your neighbor's ass for peeking in the windows.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
So you're saying society shouldn't have in put on the behavior of its citizens?

In general:

Public behavior, yes.

Private behavior, no.

[Smokin Joe]

In general:

Public behavior, yes.

Private behavior, no.

There is a point where we will agree there are sorts of private behaviour we limit. Otherwise, incest, abuse, and a host of other things would not be illegal. It is only a question of where the line gets drawn.

In general, I agree, the less intrusive into private matters, the better. Public behaviour is different and has no expectation of privacy.

[driftdiver]

No one's asking for the law to "encourage" homosexuality; it's how God made some folks, that's all.   What I've long advocated for is basically two things - for the state to afford homosexuals the equal protection of the law,  and to encourage their responsible behavior. 

We all want to see a better world.  May we someday realize it.

Gods Word tells us that sex is reserved for those who are married to each other.  Marriage is limited to one man and one woman.    So adultery, premarital and homosexual sex are all contrary to Gods law.

People like you give preference to homosexuals all the time.   You force teaching of its practices at school, you force people to accept it as a normal and safe behavior.  You condemn all Christians but turn a blind eye to homosexuals.   God did not make people gay.  People do that themselves.

The fact is most homosexuals are not monogamous.  Study after study show most gays are extremely promiscuous, far more than the average heterosexual.

Enough special treatment for the 1.8% of the population you seem to be a lobbyist for.

[massadvj]

No one's asking for the law to "encourage" homosexuality; it's how God made some folks, that's all. 

While there is some evidence of a gay gene, in the majority of cases, homosexuality is a LEARNED behavior.  This is indisputable based on the social science and hard science studies that have been done.  The big lie the left is telling is that homosexuals "are born that way."  Some possibly are.  But not all, or even most, based on what we know now.

As for transgenders, there is absolutely no evidence that they are "born that way."  It is wholly and completely a learned predisposition based on all of the evidence.

I only point this out because I hate it when people, the left in particular, distort reality in pursuit of political objectives.