Thomas Jefferson a homophobe?

CorporateWhore
CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

http://www.citizensoldier.org/gaysinthemilitary.html

Haha, "while I'm separating church and state, why don't we separate gay men's genitals."

How is your liberal hero now? Is separation of church and state STILL so precious to you? Bahahahaaaaaaaa
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

    http://www.citizensoldier.org/gaysinthemilitary.html

    Haha, "while I'm separating church and state, why don't we separate gay men's genitals."

    How is your liberal hero now? Is separation of church and state STILL so precious to you? Bahahahaaaaaaaa
    What are you babbling about?

    He was right on church & state, wrong on gay sex ... so what?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

    http://www.citizensoldier.org/gaysinthemilitary.html

    Haha, "while I'm separating church and state, why don't we separate gay men's genitals."

    How is your liberal hero now? Is separation of church and state STILL so precious to you? Bahahahaaaaaaaa
    Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Does that make the Declaration of Independence bunk?

    I also read in another thread that you're Catholic. Trust me, as such you want the seperation of church and state to remain the law of the land.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    hippiemom wrote:
    What are you babbling about?

    He was right on church & state, wrong on gay sex ... so what?

    Oh, let him have his little moment. He seemed so happy and childlike believing that we have to agree with everything a person says if we agree with anything he says. :p
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Does that make the Declaration of Independence bunk?

    I also read in another thread that you're Catholic. Trust me, as such you want the seperation of church and state to remain the law of the land.

    I do like the theory of separation of church and state. I think liberals misapply it, though. I think it merely keeps the state from forming its own church.

    But I do like Jefferson's ideas about gays!! Unlike slave-owning, Jefferson actually tried to pass laws about castrating homosexuals. He never tried to pass laws about limiting the rights of blacks. But he did write a declaration of independence that gave man inherent freedom!

    What I'm saying is, Jefferson stayed away from slavery because he knew he was wrong. But, he said gays should be castrated because he knew the government COULD rule on that.

    God bless our founders!
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Oh, let him have his little moment. He seemed so happy and childlike believing that we have to agree with everything a person says if we agree with anything he says. :p

    But, don't you think that castration of homosexuals is a little extreme?

    If a politician supported that today, would you likely listen to anything else he had to say?
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    But, don't you think that castration of homosexuals is a little extreme?

    If a politician supported that today, would you likely listen to anything else he had to say?


    No, I don't think that is a good stance, obviously.

    That wouldn't keep me from agreeing with said person on things that I see the same way. I wouldn't support that person. But that doesn't take away other good points he may have.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    But, don't you think that castration of homosexuals is a little extreme?

    If a politician supported that today, would you likely listen to anything else he had to say?

    That is actually a very good question and a valid point. However, it only seems extreme today...it wouldn't have seemed that extreme back then.

    I wonder what in today's society will seem that extreme 100 years from now...death penalty...abortion...
    hippiemom = goodness
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I do like the theory of separation of church and state. I think liberals misapply it, though. I think it merely keeps the state from forming its own church.
    And, what's the best way to make sure the state doesn't form it's own church by proxy? Keep it from doing religious things. Besides, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses read:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Were is simply meant to mean that Congress can't establish a state religion, it would have been phrased "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...."
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    But I do like Jefferson's ideas about gays!!
    So you like the idea of chopping off gay men's penises? Fantasies like that are often a sign of latent homosexual desires - a way of destroying what you are ashamed to love.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Unlike slave-owning, Jefferson actually tried to pass laws about castrating homosexuals. He never tried to pass laws about limiting the rights of blacks. But he did write a declaration of independence that gave man inherent freedom!
    Considering blacks at the time had no rights, such laws were unnecessary.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    What I'm saying is, Jefferson stayed away from slavery because he knew he was wrong.
    Yet he still owned slaves. Doesn't sound like he "stayed away" all that much.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    But, he said gays should be castrated because he knew the government COULD rule on that.
    Yeah, probably a closet case.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    God bless our founders!
    In spite of everything - yeah, they were pretty smart for the time. And I'd like to stress the phrase "for the time."
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    No, I don't think that is a good stance, obviously.

    That wouldn't keep me from agreeing with said person on things that I see the same way. I wouldn't support that person. But that doesn't take away other good points he may have.

    Is that the type of person you'd want to help lead your revolution? Maybe?

    What I'm saying is this: Jefferson would be looked at like an extremist right-winger today. Therefore, liberals shouldn't claim that he was some atheist champion of separation of church and state. The man went to church in the capitol building for christ's sake.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Is that the type of person you'd want to help lead your revolution? Maybe?

    What I'm saying is this: Jefferson would be looked at like an extremist right-winger today. Therefore, liberals shouldn't claim that he was some atheist champion of separation of church and state. The man went to church in the capitol building for christ's sake.
    So, should conservatives claim him? Or are you saying we should exorcise him - and all the other founding fathers - from our history all together?
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Is that the type of person you'd want to help lead your revolution? Maybe?

    What I'm saying is this: Jefferson would be looked at like an extremist right-winger today. Therefore, liberals shouldn't claim that he was some atheist champion of separation of church and state. The man went to church in the capitol building for christ's sake.
    You assume that, were he alive today, he would still hold 18th century views. I think that's unlikely. He was progressive for his time, my guess is that he would be progressive in our time too.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Is that the type of person you'd want to help lead your revolution? Maybe?

    What I'm saying is this: Jefferson would be looked at like an extremist right-winger today. Therefore, liberals shouldn't claim that he was some atheist champion of separation of church and state. The man went to church in the capitol building for christ's sake.

    Thankfully, society has evolved a long way since then. I don't care what he did with his personal time. I agree with him on the importance of separation of church and state. It's simple really.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    And, what's the best way to make sure the state doesn't form it's own church by proxy? Keep it from doing religious things. Besides, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses read:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Were is simply meant to mean that Congress can't establish a state religion, it would have been phrased "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...."

    Where in that does it say that the government can't let the ten commandments be put up if its funded by non-taxpayer dollars? I agree that the state should not do religious things, but private organizations should be able to do religious things with state property.

    The state prohibits the free exercise of religion when it does not allow private citizens to express their religion in public. Expression can take the form of the ten commandments or prayer in schools or stars of david on public grounds or what have you.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Where in that does it say that the government can't let the ten commandments be put up if its funded by non-taxpayer dollars? I agree that the state should not do religious things, but private organizations should be able to do religious things with state property.

    The state prohibits the free exercise of religion when it does not allow private citizens to express their religion in public. Expression can take the form of the ten commandments or prayer in schools or stars of david on public grounds or what have you.
    Don't churches and religious people have front yards? Why do you want to clutter up the statehouse lawn?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    hippiemom wrote:
    Don't churches and religious people have front yards? Why do you want to clutter up the statehouse lawn?

    Because it's my constitutional right.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Where in that does it say that the government can't let the ten commandments be put up if its funded by non-taxpayer dollars? I agree that the state should not do religious things, but private organizations should be able to do religious things with state property.

    The state prohibits the free exercise of religion when it does not allow private citizens to express their religion in public. Expression can take the form of the ten commandments or prayer in schools.
    I'm not so sure if you'd be saying this if some non-taxpayer entity wanted to put up giant statues of castrated gay cocks all over your public park or square. Erecting religious statues and what not in public is an endorsement by the state of a specific religion. Put them up on private land - public land is for everyone, even the Christ-punchers.

    And the state doesn't stop from expressing their religion in public. If you want bow your head in school and pray, I don't think anyone will stop you. However, you cannot force school prayer on students, as that would invariably violate someone else's freedom to express his or her religion.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Because it's my constitutional right.
    How is it your right to put a bunch of crap all over the property that all taxpayers, not just you, are paying for? Put your biblical nonsense on your own property.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Expression can take the form of the ten commandments or prayer in schools or stars of david on public grounds or what have you.
    Nice attempt at a save by throwing that "stars of david" bit in there. I think you were being a little more reflective of your beliefs with the initial post, though.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Because it's my constitutional right.
    How so? I'd say it's not your constitutional right to use our government and our public space to promote your private religion.
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    RainDog wrote:
    I'm not so sure if you'd be saying this if some non-taxpayer entity wanted to put up giant statues of castrated gay cocks all over your public park or square.

    That sounds like more of an art installation kind of thing, doesn't it?

    I'd like to see a "giant statues of castrated gay cocks" exhibit in front of the Mississippi state capitol, funded by the NEA. That'd be friggin' hilarious.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."

Categories