http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3769
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
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).
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).
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).
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.
Stella McCartney
So Bin Ich
Jucca
On another blog, there has been quite a stir on those who would attempt to defend what is called a traditional (Biblical) point of view and some nasty aspersions have been either used or inferred. Once again, it is the enlightenment of the left which sees things more righteously and though I shake my head at their vitriol,. it requires a response. I feel very proud of those who defended what they believe, especially as the topic is not all that positive for even most conservatives here.
1However, I have a greater faith in the ability of conservatives to be able to read and understand the wherefores of traditional opinions, of which I include my own.
I maintain that homosexuality is nothing like the plight of the black person and that it has little or nothing to do with the equality of all people under the Constitution in the way in which various races were treated for many years. Still I offer, to whatever ears will still hear, the fact that hating the sin and loving the sinner does not preclude an invocation of justice which is God given. Mistakes in application are never reason for scrapping the entire principle.
Of course, should one decide to negate this history and tradition, I should think that the entire foundations of Western Civilization may be farther along towards their demise than I expected.
I could say I understand this as stated because that is exactly what was taught to me all my childhood and well into my young adult life however I am conflicted because I am at odds with such hate.
Yes, I see it as hate. They call it sodomy if it is within a same sex relationship, yet it is well known but rarely spoken of as the only means of birth control for centuries between the traditional of male/female relationship.
I wonder how many would have burned, hung, or been beaten to death merely because they chose "the back door" as a means of birth control. Is it less vile if it is within a traditional relationship?
The basis of arguments with regard to homosexuality is steeped with this belief that relationships among men are not tolerated while often woman were told to "comfort" each other...which means what? Are we to then assume that "comfort" among women is not vile simply because they lacked the equipment to penetrate?
"Handmaidens" have many descriptions and served many purposes yet we see no condemnation there. These women took comfort, gave comfort and attended to the needs...yet are those "needs" explained? Not well.
While I understand the teachings and the focus of this article I bring the reader to note one particular sentence found in the second paragraph:
"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."
********************Cheeky interpretation:
I believe terrorism is a bigger threat than homosexuality.
I believe soldiers who fought & die for OUR safety should be honored equally as they suffer equally and sometimes more. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you prick them do they not bleed as you and I? Are they not taxed as you and I?
I do not believe that illegal immigrants have undermined the "Traditional American Values" due to the fact that the majority of those immigrants are different flavors of Christians...more than any other religion. Americans have ALLOWED the undermining of those values largely by an extremist view of political correctness and special interest groups....not ONE single group.
I believe that "values in general" are in a paradigm flux which is largely a result of the failure to hold to those beliefs so many voice but do not live as examples of. It is a hypocrisy to shout and point blame while behind closed doors guard secrets whispered and murmured about.
If those self-conscientiousness' are tormenting those who fail to see their own short-comings...I say look within before pointing a finger. I venture to say that within most marriage beds lie similar sins that are overlooked, not spoken of, and in this case omitted.
2Totally agree eleu- homosexuality is "nothing like the plight of the black person and that it has little or nothing to do with the equality of all people under the Constitution in the way in which various races were treated for many years. Still I offer, to whatever ears will still hear, the fact that hating the sin and loving the sinner does not preclude an invocation of justice which is God given. Mistakes in application are never reason for scrapping the entire principle."
If one embraces the teaching of the Bible, God makes Himself clear on His position about the subject.
3This thread is DISGUSTING and OFFENSIVE!
However, I could have sworn the poster of this bigotry self-identified herself as being bisexual
4yep, just checked Eleuthera's profile and "Sexual Orientation" is defined as "bisexual"...why such a hateful post?
5Isn't there a "confused" option?
I am confused about the real purpose of this post.
6tiabia...I had a hard time commenting and staying on topic...The whole article felt like flaming hate.
7Just a small note.
Jesus forgave Judas for being a traitor...taking part in his eventual death. I personally cannot see any sin greater than being the traitor of a savior, a former best friend and confidant...yet he was forgiven.
God could not help him though if Judas happened to be gay?
Does the weight of one's sin vary? Whose sin would it be? I can't believe Jesus would have loved Judas less if he were gay....he fought to protect Mary Magdalene who was a condemned woman of ill repute...stating "he who hath not sinned cast the first stone"
This article was tossing stones willy-nilly with disregard for any common sense in this day and age. One cannot spew Bible passages like this without being compared to extremists who bomb abortion clinics OR bomb groups of innocent people in the middle east. This was one very extreme article.
I am hoping ELeuthra was looking for a focus on something I must have missed completely...otherwise my dear friend we have officially discovered our first topic we will simply have to agree to disagree with.
8I agree, cheeky and tia.
9but then again, at the time of Blackwell, women were chattel, A man's home was his castle, and what he did to and with his wife and children was nobody elses business. As a mater of fact there were no child abuse laws anywhere. The first child abuse case ever brought was in NYC in 1870, and they used an ASPCA law, that dealt with cruelty to animals, and set up a minimum standard of feeding and watering horses.
Tiabia, i see nothing hateful in posting historical facts. I just shows us how much sensibilities have evolved. Remember also at that time children in England as young as aged 10 were being hanged for pickpocketing.
10It is when it's a "response" to another thread...but whatever, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
11"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."
12Anyone who reads the first two paragraphs can see this is not a simple posting of historic facts... and the last two sentences make it clear this is a call to action.
13Ellla, can you give my some examples?
14sI think there are some who are embracing sacred words and interpreting them in a more literal sense than they have in the past 50 years. This "literal" sense cannot pick and choose which portions to hold as moral code/moral law and then feel they are obligated to reinforce/force those ideals on those around them.
This is the best definition of an extremist point of view.
If a group wants to embrace completely the rules/code/laws within sacred texts they must also embrace the limitations which some with them......they however cannot expect the rest of us to do so as well by either force or condemnation.
Will these same religious extremists within Christian communities begin to take more than one wife, limit the education and freedoms of females in general and then treat us as cattle? Are we then going to be forced to change our manner of dress, how we interact, and to whom we speak?
They already want to tell us what we can do with our bodies. They assume they know what is best for all----and that is where our constitution steps in. Our freedoms are well documented in law.
Will we allow ourselves to go backwards in time, be limited by beliefs and ideals we do not share? I do not think so.
Our country is in flux...we are in the midst of redefining everything. What our values, beliefs, concerns, ideals, morals, and associations are changing. Some people do not welcome change---they are afraid of it. Fear can be very destructive.
Extremists is every belief system uses fear, condemnation, and hate. I can't help but feel it is simply a possibility that they too are at odds about what they FEEL and are overwhelmed by guilt...and then look for somewhere else to place that guilt--separate from themselves.
15Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.