Tennessee county beats hasty retreat from call to ban homosexuals

Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2004 | BILL POOVEY

[narses]

Really "deacon" you are a hoot. Being drunk alone harms only the one, the rest of the sins you promote as "ought to be legal" harm others and society. Do tell, how do you reconcile your alleged "holy orders" with a support for legalizing adultery, homosexual activity and fornication?

[narses]

Exactly. But here you have an alleged "deacon" arguing for repealing laws that are consistant with the teachings of Our Lord. See the problem?

[breakem]

In the country from which you're posting, what is the penalty for fornication and adultery?

[AntiGuv]

I would only add one notation about adultery. While I do not support criminalizing the sexual activity itself, I do support taking its impact into account in related circumstances (such as divorce).

[fr_freak]

My dictionary (I just checked) says that a "homosexual" is: [an individual] characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as oneself.

Ah well, I had to go look and the dictionary did include those with desire in the definition, so I guess I stand (sit) corrected. Maybe I need to write my own dictionary.

[narses]

"Of course they should. Don't be ridiculous."

Was Thomas Jefferson 'ridiculous' when he authored the Virginia Statutes on Sodomy? Is the UCMJ 'ridiculous' for criminalizing adultery, sodomy and fornication?

[narses]

In the USA, military officers guilty of those crimes are FELONS. What country do YOU live in?

[sinkspur]

Really "deacon" you are a hoot. Being drunk alone harms only the one, the rest of the sins you promote as "ought to be legal" harm others and society. Do tell, how do you reconcile your alleged "holy orders" with a support for legalizing adultery, homosexual activity and fornication?

Consenting adults.

Those actions are still sinful, but I'm not in favor of cops busting down doors for two consenting adults engaged in fornication.

The laws were removed from the books or overturned because they weren't being enforced anyway.

[Unam Sanctam]

I said I was not defending the law, although I do think it should be left to the democratic process rather than through judicial fiat of "Lawrence" based on vague Constitutional notions. I was merely saying that Associated Press is inaccurate to say that the law "banned homosexuals". Rather it banned the activity. There is a huge difference, and it is essential to use words accurately rather than obfuscate as the gay activists and their fellow travelers.

[Unam Sanctam]

I said I was not defending the law, although I do think it should be left to the democratic process rather than through judicial fiat of "Lawrence" based on vague Constitutional notions. I was merely saying that Associated Press is inaccurate to say that the law "banned homosexuals". Rather it banned the activity. There is a huge difference, and it is essential to use words accurately rather than obfuscate as the gay activists and their fellow travelers.

[sinkspur]

But here you have an alleged "deacon" arguing for repealing laws that are consistant with the teachings of Our Lord

Jesus condemned drunkenness, too.

You're a bit hypocritical.

[narses]

So 'consenting adults' can certainly include incest, is that "OK" for the "Deacon" of the 'net? How does "consenting adults" reconcile with your alleged "Holy Orders"? What Oath did you swear "deacon"? To support "consenting adults" or the Laws of God?

[narses]

But you would criminalize bestiality (while supporting the killing and eating of dumb animals, I assume), incest and sex between those over 18 and those under 18. What moral precepts guide you and why are they entitled to the force of law?

[narses]

Really? You would support making ALL of those sins legal and you claim Holy Orders. Who is the hypocrite here "deacon"?

[breakem]

Please cite the military code section which makes fornication a felony? And please quote the US code.

[sinkspur]

Who is the hypocrite here "deacon"?

You are. You want what is sinful to be illegal.

Lots of fat folks would be in jail, in your world.

[narses]

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blusmccriminal-6.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-2.htm

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/1999dig/IIIA13.htm

[timm22]

In the USA, military officers guilty of those crimes are FELONS. What country do YOU live in?

Members of the military voluntarily join that organization. They choose, as adults, to submit themselves to the UCMJ. It's not quite the same as state laws. This is the United States, not Sparta or some other totalitarian society. The civil authority is superior to the military, and civilians do not fall under military law.

Think about it. The UCMJ also prohibits disobeying the orders of your superiors. Should we take that into account when considering laws against disobeying your office manager or shop foreman?

[AntiGuv]

No. Thomas Jefferson lived in the 1700s. Many things which were not ridiculous then are ridiculous now, and vice versa. I do not idolize the past for its own sake. By and large, the past was a crude, brutish, ignorant, backwards, limited, oppressive time that I have no desire to see revived.

Yes, the UCMJ is ridiculous for criminalizing those behaviors in any context beyond their impact on carrying out military duties.

[narses]

I asked "Who is the hypocrite here" and you answer:

"You are. You want what is sinful to be illegal. "

How is that being a HYPOCRITE "deacon"?

"Lots of fat folks would be in jail, in your world."

Where is being FAT either a sin or a crime "deacon"?