The Founders on Homosexuality

Apologetics Press ^ | Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[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.