Amendment VIII (also known as Bill 64) was created in 1778 and was a list of punishments for crimes that was submitted to the Virginia Assembly in 1779.  It was Jefferson alone who created Bill 64, though the other bills that formed the context around 64 were created by a committee of others.

It's an interesting read and can be seen in full here.

At a certain point you reach the sentence below:




Now, Jefferson is known as the greatest supporter of individuals rights among the Founders (and is perhaps the favorite Founder of liberals and libertarians).  He is often quoted as saying:

Glenn Beck recently used this Jefferson quote when he stated on the "O'Reilly Factor" that homosexual marriage did not bother him and is not a threat to the country.

Yet looking at the top quote from Bill 64 we see that Jefferson wrote out harsh punishments for homosexuality and grouped it together with other forms of sexual deviancy.



So my question to liberals and libertarians (if you support gay marriage) is this:
Since Jefferson was the greatest advocate of individual liberties during the founding of these United States, how does Jefferson's negative view of gay marriage (or more specifically, homosexuality in general) meld with your positive views of gay marriage?  Is it possible that homosexual marriage is not an individual right?

i don't really have a dog in this fight, as i dont really give a fuck about Jefferson, his gay papers, or gay marriage.

But, i don't think it is going to bother liberals or libertarians. Libertarians, to whatever extent they might like Jefferson, do so because they find quotes like this one :"If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?": to by complimentary to their own ideas. So these authoritarian comments will not change minds about the issue, but will only make them change their minds on the man.

I would think that libertarianism has its limits, and he was just following the "common sense" rules for crimes against "decency" in his time period. Same way libertarians now still are ok with putting kiddie porn makers in jail.

Not neccessarily aimed at you:
Do standards change over time and should they?  Human nature never changes over time.

This brings up the "slippery slope" argument.  
By that thinking, since homosexuality was wrong back then but 'ok' now does that mean kiddie porn will eventually become accepted in the future even though it is thought wrong today?  And should we allow standards to slip like that?

The government should have NO business in marriage.... or what consenting adults do with/to each other.

we think alike.

On that we agree.



I used Bill 64 merely to point out that the champion of individual rights absolutely hated homosexuality, hence he did not belive gay marriage to be a right.  So, how do so many liberals and libertarians believe gay marriage is a right when the biggest and most outspoken supporter of individual rights among the Founders did not support it and did not believe it to be a God-given individual right?

Jefferson owned slaves; does this mean that slavery might not be wrong?

Red herring.

Context my friend.. I don't think Jefferson was talking about consensual sex, but forced acts against some one... And this seem like a reasonable punishment to me..

1778 would have been during the span of the Articles of Confederation, during which the colony of Virgina would have been operating much more as an autonomous body republic.  Also, the legal structure the Articles were built upon was vastly different, and little to no individual or civil rights protection was codified in it.  If there were any legal protections, they were at the discretion of each colonial government.

9 years after that point when we were under the Constitution, which contained the bill of rights and explicit protections of individual rights, Jefferson obviously didn't feel it was necessary, appropriate, or legally permissible under that form of government to propose or enact a similar federal statute.

Different government, different laws, different civil structure, and on top of that, the concept was later abandoned.

He was.



Homosexuality falls under sodomy.  The word 'sodomy' comes from the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, both known for their sinfullness and specifically their rampant homosexuality.

And yours is an appeal to authority.  Also, my hair is a bird.

No, it isn't.

Jefferson said "if it neither breaks my leg..."

He owned slaves, he had sex with one of them and fathered a child. He wrote this Amendment. He wasn't perfect. All of the founding fathers, in one way or another, did something that was contrary to the idea that 'all men are created equal.'

But his idea is a damn good one.

Yes, they absolutely change. In studying history and sociology, and being in the military, the one thing I've learned is that "standards" are fluid. Everything is constantly changing. What was okay yesterday, is not necessarily going to be okay tomorrow, and tomorrow you might get away with something that was unsat yesterday.

Before Kinsey (hell, for several years after Kinsey) being homosexual was considered rare and sick. Only in recent years has homosexuality been accepted as a standard variation.

You believe that the woman whom Jefferson mandated to have the cartilage of her nose ripped out...

...was forcing herself upon someone?

So if your wife gives you a blow job, and the police catch wind of it you'll lose your balls and she'll get an extra nostril.

Sounds like a capital idea.

"A great" not "the greatest"

He's not Jesus H. Christ of the Libertarian movement or anything. He didn't write down the inerrant bible of libertarianism, he was one of the founding fathers of a constitutional republic. I respect many of his ideas but by no means all of them.

If I can toss aside his apparent ideas about rape and slavery, I can also ignore other obviously wrong ideas about relations between consenting adults.

I think if she tied you to the bed and shoved a broom stick up your ass, she would be forcing herself on you... You think this shit is new? Crazy is timeless..

How do the archaic views of a man from centuries ago "meld" with a modern viewpoint on a domestic issue that is constantly changing?



You're grasping at straws.  Quite frankly, no one would argue that the "founding fathers" would be pro-gay marriage.  Society at large has obviously "loosened up" a bit in many regards in 200 years.



Women and racial minorities have increased social, political, and economic power, the likes of which the founders would never dream of allowing.  The Senate was originally appointed, not elected.  While we tend to reject the idea of the Constitution as a "living, breathing document," things have changed for the better when it comes to expanding freedom.



Many folks like to quote things from history, particularly with 18th century American political figures.  Most people, however, tend to look back and see how they can justify or prove an expansion of liberty.  You seem to want to restrict it.



I am far less concerned with what Jefferson said than with the intentions of folks that would quote such things.





- BG
 

This also includes oral sex and anal sex between heterosexuals.....if you ever went down on a wife / GF or SIIHP.....then you have committed sodomy.

The Government has no business getting involved in the affairs of CONSENTING ADULTS.

And you REALLY think that's what Jefferson was talking about?

This.



Jefferson owned people, so his views on morality are not bedrock....even if 98% were in line with my libertarian viewpoint.



Stupid thread is stupid.



 

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I don't .. but It was fun playing... Why is it I never get to revise history!!!! Stomps feet and walks away..

As a Libertarian, it's important to note that it isn't TJ himself that I have a hard-on for.



It's the ideals of freedom, specifically.



While he may have had a personal bias for whatever reason - culture, religion, family environment... whatever, the larger idea of individual freedom is the focus point.



While I obviously disagree with that portion of 64, I think it only reinforces my belief that it's always better to err on the side of individual liberty, than it is to make distinctions between one type of person or another in application.

Jefferson was a man. Man is flawed.

I still carry a $2 bill in my wallet.