Is Homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"?

[Mill]

So what does everyone think about this ruling? I would assume it will get overturned in higher courts. I actually want to discuss why you think this order is right or wrong. PLEASE keep it civil or the mods can lock it.<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020215_1947.html">


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020215_1947.html</A>


MONTGOMERY, Ala. Feb. 15
In awarding custody of three teen-agers to their father over their gay mother, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday wrote that homosexuality is "an inherent evil" and shouldn't be tolerated.
The nine-judge panel ruled unanimously in favor of a Birmingham man and against his ex-wife, who now lives with her gay partner in southern California.
The parents weren't named in court documents to protect the identity of the children, ages 15, 17 and 18.
Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote that the mother's relationship made her an unfit parent and that homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature."
Moore also quoted scripture, historical documents and previous state court rulings that he said backed his view.
Moore is known for his decision to place washing machine-sized monuments of the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building after he became chief justice last year. He also fought to keep a Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom when he was a district judge.
David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, said Moore's opinion reflected outdated thinking.
"It's unfortunate Alabama is going to be embarrassed once again by a religious fanatic in a position of power in Alabama," White said. "It's obvious he cannot judge a gay person fairly and he should be removed from office."
John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition, said Moore's decision protected the institution of marriage and strengthened the traditional family.
The father had held custody since 1996, but the mother petitioned for custody in June 2000, contending the father had been abusive.
John Durward, the father's attorney, said his client "is very relieved."
The mother's attorney, Wendy Crew, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

 

[minendo]

How about the choice I have no opinion and dont care how others choose to live their lives? (Or a choice somewhere along those lines.)

 

[glenn1]

<< Is homosexuality "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"? >>



No. But something tells me that the ex-wife probably left the husband and kids behind to go indulge in her new lesbian lifestyle, and a mother willing to leave her children behind is all of the above. If that was the case, the court ruled correctly, although they could have (and should have) left out the sermonizing about homosexuality being "wrong."

 

[luv2chill]

<<

<< Is homosexuality "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"? >>



No. But something tells me that the ex-wife probably left the husband and kids behind to go indulge in her new lesbian lifestyle, and a mother willing to leave her children behind is all of the above. If that was the case, the court ruled correctly, although they could have (and should have) left out the sermonizing about homosexuality being "wrong." >>

Just curious glenn1, would you say the same for a father "willing to leave his children behind is all of the above"?

Just checking to make sure there isn't a double-standard.

I think the judge went way too far. Quoting scripture to back up your judgements is an insult to the justice system.

l2c

 

[Elledan]

Ah, you gotta love those religious fanatics...

 

[Czar]

<< Is Homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"? >>


no, it is a part of nature belive it or not.

 

[Elledan]

Hmm... the first vote for complete agreement...

The last two choices are identical, BTW.

 

[Mill]

Elledan I was just noticing that.

 

[glenn1]

<< Just curious glenn1, would you say the same for a father "willing to leave his children behind is all of the above"?

Just checking to make sure there isn't a double-standard. >>



Yes, i would say that a father moving from Alabama to California to be with a new honey, and leaving his kids behind, would have to be looked at as a serious candidate as an unfit father as well.

There is a slight double standard with men, because when things go wrong in a relationship with children, it's generally the man who moves out, and the woman takes care of the children while the parents (and/or a court) sort things out. This assumes he's acting in good faith (not moving out to be with a woman he was cheating on his wife with), and also it's one thing for a man to move out and across town, it's another for him to move cross country.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan I was just noticing that. >>

Good

Up to three votes now...

I would like to hear the reasoning of these individuals.

 

[IGBT]

Homo's are biological anomlaies. Plain and simple.

 

[Alex]

not exactly... but i gotta admit its kinda gross.

i have nothing against homoesuals tho.....as long as they dont hit on me...

 

[Elledan]

<< Homo's are biological anomlaies. Plain and simple. >>


Yes, in a way they're exceptions.

It seems likely that it are mostly biological factors which play a role, with upbringing being relatively unimportant.

 

[Nitemare]

I agree with the decision about handing custody over to the father, however the judge's rationale is religiously skewed.

She should appeal and seek to have him disbarred or at least reprimanded for allowing his religious views to influence his judicial decisions. He is supposed to examine the evidence. then look at the law and past cases to come up with a decision. He is Judge Wapner not Jimmy Swaggart..

[sarcasm]but then again if his name was Judge Judy it would be perfectly acceptable[/sarcasm]

 

[MadRat]

<<no, it is a part of nature belive it or not.>>

No, its not. The so-called homosexuality cited in nature is not even remotely associated to human homosexuality. The brutal acts of domination in nature do not make the animals homosexual.

<<It seems likely that it are mostly biological factors which play a role, with upbringing being relatively unimportant.>>

Actually the studies of adopted children living with homosexual partners showed that these children were far more likely to become homosexual themselves than adopted children with heterosexual parents. Nuturing has been shown to be a significant factor in the predisposition of a child to grow up gay.

 

[Jerboy]

<< <<no, it is a part of nature belive it or not.>>

No, its not. The so-called homosexuality cited in nature is not even remotely associated to human homosexuality. The brutal acts of domination in nature do not make the animals homosexual.

<<It seems likely that it are mostly biological factors which play a role, with upbringing being relatively unimportant.>>

Actually the studies of adopted children living with homosexual partners showed that these children were far more likely to become homosexual themselves than adopted children with heterosexual parents. Nuturing has been shown to be a significant factor in the predisposition of a child to grow up gay. >>



what study?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< I agree with the decision about handing custody over to the father, however the judge's rationale is religiously skewed.

She should appeal and seek to have him disbarred or at least reprimanded for allowing his religious views to influence his judicial decisions. He is supposed to examine the evidence. then look at the law and past cases to come up with a decision. He is Judge Wapner not Jimmy Swaggart..

[sarcasm]but then again if his name was Judge Judy it would be perfectly acceptable[/sarcasm] >>



I'd say they should look into the claim of abuse first.

 

[IGBT]

What's this I hear that the Mormons are operating homo rehab clinics. And are claiming a better then 62percent success rate. There is hope for these people. They can clean up and change deviant behavior according to the Mormons. :Q

 

[luv2chill]

<<

<< Just curious glenn1, would you say the same for a father "willing to leave his children behind is all of the above"?

Just checking to make sure there isn't a double-standard. >>



Yes, i would say that a father moving from Alabama to California to be with a new honey, and leaving his kids behind, would have to be looked at as a serious candidate as an unfit father as well.

There is a slight double standard with men, because when things go wrong in a relationship with children, it's generally the man who moves out, and the woman takes care of the children while the parents (and/or a court) sort things out. This assumes he's acting in good faith (not moving out to be with a woman he was cheating on his wife with), and also it's one thing for a man to move out and across town, it's another for him to move cross country. >>

OK... was just checking, because I know the number of fathers who skip out on their kids is disproportionately high compared to the number of mothers who do so. Seeing as such fathers are not ordinarily called "abbhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature", I thought it interesting that you would characterize a mother doing the same thing as such.

IF she did desert the family to skip off with a new lover, I certainly don't condone it. But the fact is that it happens with men frequently... to the point where society almost considers it a normal thing. How often do you hear kids talk about how their dads skipped out on them during early childhood. All the damn time. How often do you hear of a mother doing so? Hardly ever.

But also we're talking about your speculation here. The article does not address the reasons why the mother ended up in California. We don't know the full story here.

l2c

 

[Mill]

Glad to see this thread is staying civil so far.

 

[glenn1]

<< OK... was just checking, because I know the number of fathers who skip out on their kids is disproportionately high compared to the number of mothers who do so. >>



That's probably a big part of the reason why custody is awarded to mothers on a disproportionately high percentage. How often do fathers get custody, 5% of the time?



<< But the fact is that it happens with men frequently... to the point where society almost considers it a normal thing. >>



Just because something happens so frequently that society almost considers it normal, does not make it right. I would say that a father who skips out on his wife and kids to be with another person (absent extreme circumstances) is morally unfit to be a full-custody father yes, regardless of whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual arrangement. Ditto for the wife.



<< But also we're talking about your speculation here. The article does not address the reasons why the mother ended up in California. We don't know the full story here. >>



I admitted it was speculation. Something tells me that it is probably the case though. People who are serious about winning custody of their children don't move 2000 miles away from them.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< That's probably a big part of the reason why custody is awarded to mothers on a disproportionately high percentage. How often do fathers get custody, 5% of the time? >>



The reason for that is pretty simple - men typically do not seek custody. When they DO seek custody, they have a better chance of winning it.

 

[walkur]

I think it's going a bit off-topic, the question was do you agree with the statement:

homosexuality is "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against nature"?

I certainly do not, and i'm happy to live in a country where that feeling is backed by the law...

 

[LordMaul]

Ah, at least there is still someone with half a brain rather than these animal loving, buck futting, pu$$y-assed brainless morons I see who think the absolute most rediculous things and are convinced that if anyone disagrees, that they should be taken out of office...'Course, that's a two way street, and I think the same the other way around..

WIll it ever stop?

Nope, not until some people have their way and any and all form of oppinsition to believe is banished and America is like 17th century England. "Believe in evolution and homo-rights or off with your head!"

I was going to edit and take some things out of this, but I still agree with everything in this post...I see the thread is still staying halfway civil so ignore it if you wish.

 

[calpha]

I could have done without the crime against nature part.

I went to a christian school, and really hated the Christian assemblies and such that were required. It was a private college, but it had great teacher to student ratio. My favorite required religion class was Christian Ethics. We didn't ponder Right vs Wrong in homosexuality, but more of what causes it, ie, nature vs nurture. The only conclusion possible after getting past the fanatics that wanted to argue the bible to the professor, was that there is a grey line, and there really is no way to definitively tell. Part of the ethic discussion was how to take grey lines and live with them. The judgments were left up to us. In the end, as most christians would say, it's a "wrong" choice, but it's just as wrong for christians to judge them for being wrong, as it is for them to be "wrong" for being gay. I do believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that's my belief, nothing more.

I myself have no qualms with homosexuals. I used to, but that was because it took me a while to realize that they are people, not perverts. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't have a right to enforce my beliefs on them, and I had to come to grips with that. We live in a free society, not a christian society, and that's just a fact of life. The Rule of Law, not Christain Law.

Now, let me go a step further. I'm the child of a divorce (2 years ago, my parents divorced after 20 years) where there was no cheating, just fell out of love.

My first cousins had a POS father, who not only cheated on his wife innumerable times, but would move out, try to make up, and move back in (over and over and over) because my aunt believed it was her Christian duty to try and make him a better man. After about 8 years of the same mess, she finally divorced him because there was no hope for him, and because more factors emerged then just infidelity. I would call what he did "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, and a crime against his family", but not nature. It was very hard on his wife, but exponentially harder on his kids, who are dealing with his actions on a day to day basis.

That wife may love her kids, but I genuinely feel for them. Divorce is hard enough. Even harder when you have to wonder what made your mom turn gay. Was it your dad? or was it her all along? The real victim in this case IMO aren't the parents but the kids, and although I think the judge overstepped by "the crime against nature "part, I'm more outraged by the fact that the mother thought she was fit for custody of her kids, then by the judge.

If she had left the husband because he was abusive (and it could be proven), I'd really be in a pickle about what I thought because foster care sucks, so that's why I'm glad I'm not a judge. Nonetheless, I think the judge made the right decision, but should have left the sermon go for the churchgoers.