The Founders on Homosexuality

Apologetics Press ^ | Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.

The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone 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....

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a work concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

Sir William Blackstone

Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.

How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army. The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George...,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”

Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws...,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Image courtesy of Library of Congress, General Collections

Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. The warning issued by God to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.

REFERENCES

Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.

Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).

Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.

Miller, Dave, et al.(2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

---

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

[Smokin' Joe]

The trouble is, to activists, it is either 100% acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, marriage, kids, teaching it in schools, banning speaking of it Churches as sin, OR you want them dead, or tortured, or imprisoned, or not allowed to work, or some such nonsense.

This is a common liberal tactic. Extrapolate the opposition's position to a hyperbolic extreme and present that as the only (and usually unacceptable) alternative.

Frankly, when social pressure was against open homosexual behaviour, I think there was less homosexuality, and far fewer people being confused by the predators out there.

Some of us remember when normal couples rarely (if ever) kissed in public. Holding hands with your girlfriend or spouse was about as far as it got if you were 'respectable'.

[Smokin' Joe]

...one can be born black (which was the basis of slavery in the US...

One did not have to be black to be a slave in the US, nor were all blacks slaves. Freemen did not have the same rights, granted, but they were not slaves, and some of them were owners. The issue is far different than the (black) racists present it (primarily in an attempt to justify 'reparations').

In addition, indentured servitude, usually undertaken to work off a debt, was just short-term (usually seven years) slavery, and an apprenticeship little better.

[Chode]

Roger That!!!

[Onelifetogive]

My favorite of the Founders quotes* on homosexuality is:

"I just threw up a little in my mouth." - George Washington, May 17, 1983.

*It is entirely possible that I flat made this up.

[Canedawg]

Thanks for that great post. Since it opens by discussing how this abomination has manifested in our society during the past 50 years, i think the following is also relevant:

“In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant.”

[Paved Paradise]

I am telling you one of the arguments used and it is persuasive. In spite of my understanding that homosexuality is a sin and has serious consequences for a society that not only condones it but glorifies it, I still would not equate it with murder or robbery. These are the reasons we sometimes look like fools. Best not to make equivalencies like that - they don’t work.

In the meantime, many approved of slavery and while slavery was never condemned in the scriptures, it is very clear that the Commandments themselves would prohibit the “owning” of another human, and in particular, the treatment of such as substandard or, even worse, treatment that would not even be humane for an animal. We are commanded to love our neighbor but many seemed to have no issue with slavery.

It is a much more useful argument than yours. While I can hold strong to my views, I am not naive about the positions the other side takes and some of the points that they make and that some of them are, in fact, substantive, and attractive to many who consider themselves equanimous.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

My apologies, but there is no good reason to answer that question. I don’t need to go down a list of sins a rank them from worse to worser..

[blackie]

I’m with you, 100%!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn Slavery, for he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into prison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway slaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because you know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway, _he had no right_ to send any fugitive back to his master. The state of the case then seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant to Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he wished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a recommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus, and entreating him as "Paul the aged" "to receive him, _not_ now as a servant, but _above_ a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_." This then surely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of returning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with cruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word [Greek: doulos] here translated servant, is the same that is made use of in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant owed his lord ten thousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. Onesimus could not then have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives, or children; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again, the servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very different from American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as long as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of _instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and indeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their servants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and therefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy higher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the South, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your slaves?_ are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience, answer these questions.

If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters-thus in his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things unto them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto me) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders only obey these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants, surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop, he expressly names this as one feature of it, "_no striker_." Let masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes, and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle to Timothy, he mentions "_menstealers_," which word may be translated "_slavedealers_." But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable society. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the idea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the bodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to break human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children from their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their trade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the _gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents? Why more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because their professions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of men-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is no difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells slaves, to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the wealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in that community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the _Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch. It is the _most enlightened_ in every country who are _most_ to blame when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says, "_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on _Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks." And was it not so? Open the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into captivity B.C. 606, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen monarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's, and seventy years _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame. But it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of Jehovah, "You _only_ have I known of all the families of the earth: _therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities." Hear too the doctrine of our Lord on this important subject; "The servant who _knew_ his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with _many_ stripes:" and why? "For unto whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh! then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon them_ at this important crisis.

I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.: First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence. Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having been the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to slavedealers. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all _involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth, that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural and unreasonable power, whilst it throws him out_ of the protection of law. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of our holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles."--Angelina Emily Grimke, 'An Appeal to the Christian Women of the South'

[alrea]

However, slavery is an OK alternative to execution or starvation.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness” ... Surely your not going to advocate sex weith women on their periods?? Pigs are disgusting animals and eating pork is extremely unhealthy.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from violence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money _himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_, in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi, 7.

3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants. 2 Kings iv, 1

4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55."--Angelina Emily Grimke

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."--Benjamin Rush

[kabumpo]

you are absolutely correct.

[Smokin' Joe]

In spite of my understanding that homosexuality is a sin and has serious consequences for a society that not only condones it but glorifies it, I still would not equate it with murder or robbery.

If privately practiced by consenting adults, I would not equate it with murder or robbery, either, but in its present form, the almost unavoidable indoctrination of children robs them of something which cannot be restored: their innocence.

You may feel that would happen anyway, but when I was a child (I'm a great-grandfather now), there was almost no mention of homosexuality nor the other spectra of deviant sexual behaviour save that a person was a "pervert" and to be avoided--in order to keep children away from those who might be inclined to attempt sexual molestation.

Now, and the feed is not limited to strictly deviant behaviour, deviant behaviour is broadcast as "entertainment". More can be seen in single commercials on television (especially cable) than in a month's programming in the 50s or early 60s. You can't even watch the news without being bombarded with gays this or gays that.

Yes, we have all been robbed, whether you realize it or not. It has taken three generations of the coarsening of our culture to reach this point, and while I am no prude, any culture which fails to protect its moral fiber and that of its young will inevitably fail.

[Smokin' Joe]

While not defending the institution of slavery, I think much of the discussion has been co-opted in order to push for economic concessions along racial lines.

A novel use included one of my ancestors purchasing a Jesuit priest at the priest's behest, making the priest property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Common Law during the Protestant Reformation in Maryland (ca. 1732). Otherwise, the priest would have been hanged, as were many others during that turmoil. The priest later purchased his freedom back after things had settled down.

My point is that while most slaves were agricultural labor within the US, and most were of African origin or ancestry, even within that framework the horrors of Uncle Tom's Cabin (a novel) were perpetrated on relatively few.

The willful damage of those who were property, an investment upon which their masters wished to show a profit (otherwise why purchase slaves to begin with?) would have run contrary to sound business practices. Slaves were often held back from the most dangerous jobs because of the investment they represented--which is why so many Irish were teamsters, longshoremen, powder monkeys, and the like as their boss had no vested interest in their well being, only in their labor, unlike slaves who were owned.

Again, I am not trying to either justify the institution, nor support its practice, just to say the broad brush with which slavery in the US has been painted is an inaccurate one.

While we might have been best off to never have had the institution, we are all unarguably better off for having abolished it.

[Paved Paradise]

Oh you and I are on the same side in this argument, sir. I can assure you. As for talk of homosexuality, the first time I heard mention of this kind of thing was when I was in junior high and a friend told me she saw two girls kissing in one of our large parks. My initial thought was, “Why would they do that?” Even when my friend told me, I still didn’t GET IT. Duh. I just had no concept that a woman would have the same kind of sexual attraction for a woman that normal women have for men.

Thank God I lived in a time of innocence. And you are absolutely right about being bombarded. It has gotten to the point where it is just insidious and pervasive. If one were to figure out the population of homosexuals (gay and lesbian) based on the numbers we see in the media, you’d think that 30 percent of our population was homosexual.

So, in summary, I agree with you totally and that is why I do not even have cable television nor intend to have it and watch very little of the regular programming. Very little.

[Lady Lucky]

4l8r

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

This is history. This is how the founders of our country viewed homosexuality. Any libertarians who want to play pretend that their hedonist philosophy has anything to do with the Constitution or the founding principles of our country is either too doped up to know anything, or a liar, or both.

If anyone wants on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.