Home› A Moving Train

Thomas Jefferson a homophobe?

CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
«13

Comments

  • hippiemomhippiemom 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
  • RainDogRainDog 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.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany 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
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany 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
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,458
    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
  • RainDogRainDog 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."
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
  • RainDogRainDog 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?
  • hippiemomhippiemom 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
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany 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
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
  • hippiemomhippiemom 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
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore 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
  • RainDogRainDog 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.
  • hippiemomhippiemom 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
  • RainDogRainDog 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.
  • RainDogRainDog 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 VanHoutenMilhouse 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."
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    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

    Well I don't like this at all. I guess I am now against the separation of Church and State. Who knew.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    hippiemom wrote:
    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.

    I say let Christians put the ten commandments in front of a court house, as long as they will erect a 15 ft tall statue of the FSM that I donate.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    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. 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.

    I think we basically agree on this issue. I don't want forced prayer or forced anything religious in any public arena.

    Still, I think the citizenry should be free to do what they want on public land, which is where we disagree. Your "gay cocks" example would probably be illegal since it is obscene...
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhoreCorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    How so? I'd say it's not your constitutional right to use our government and our public space to promote your private religion.

    Hahaha, that's absurd. Are you saying that I cannot stand on a public sidewalk (government owned) and distribute flyers? How far do you go when you say "promote"? What kind of speech is okay in regards to religion and what isn't?
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    mammasan wrote:
    I say let Christians put the ten commandments in front of a court house, as long as they will erect a 15 ft tall statue of the FSM that I donate.
    RAmen to that, brother! You're right, we should all be willing to compromise.

    People are going to like our statue SO much better :D
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    hippiemom wrote:
    Don't churches and religious people have front yards? Why do you want to clutter up the statehouse lawn?

    That just gave me an idea. Opponents of school prayer and religious monuments/documents on state grounds should get away from the same old Constitutional arguments by calling these things what they really are: graffiti and gang activity.


    hehehe.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Hahaha, that's absurd. Are you saying that I cannot stand on a public sidewalk (government owned) and distribute flyers? How far do you go when you say "promote"? What kind of speech is okay in regards to religion and what isn't?
    There is a difference between an individual distributing fliers (temporary) and a monument (permanent). For comparison, try building a leaflet distribution booth (of any kind) on public property and see how far you get.

    All "speech" is O.K. as far as religion is concerned. However, if you're going to take up space permanently, you better make sure it belongs to you. Further, I could also ask you - what if someone wanted to build a religious monument that took up an entire public square, essentially turning a park into a giant stone replica of the ten commandments - one that meets all four sidewalks surrounding it? Would that be the individual's constitutional right, or would he or she essentially be stealling public property for his or her own beliefs?
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    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.

    Now that made me laugh out loud.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I think we basically agree on this issue. I don't want forced prayer or forced anything religious in any public arena.

    Still, I think the citizenry should be free to do what they want on public land, which is where we disagree. Your "gay cocks" example would probably be illegal since it is obscene...

    I find it obscene to have a depiction of the ten commandments on public property.
  • Rats of MultaRats of Multa Posts: 250
    cincybearcat wrote:
    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...


    the criminalization of marijuana seems like a fair bet as one of the most absurd legalities [illegality] ever.
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Sign In or Register to comment.