Posted on 06/23/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
Homosexual marriage doesn’t need to be criminalized - just don’t legalize it.
Idiots inviting ridicule wrote this crap -— we need to focus, people, this is a war for America. We need to get out of the tattletale mentality and grow up. Prioritize and Keep It Simple ......
Homosexual marriage doesn’t need to be criminalized - just don’t legalize it.
Idiots inviting ridicule wrote this crap -— we need to focus, people, this is a war for America. We need to get out of the tattletale mentality and grow up. Prioritize and Keep It Simple ......
The word “sodomy” has biblical roots, but - in the American legal tradition - the word has never meant homosexuality. Homosexual acts are an example of sodomy, but the word meant a lot else besides. Generally, oral and anal sex were prohibited, even among married couples, occasionally - but not always - sex acts between women were prohibited, and at various times, intercourse with contraception (”face-to-face sodomy”), masturbation, and what the law called “extended foreplay” (that did not lead to intercourse) were also prohibited by the sodomy laws.
Whether these laws were vigorously enforced was not primary. The laws were an expression of communal morality, and served to remind people that the purpose of sex was procreation.
My own view is that such laws made sense in the past but not today, when the law has taken a hands-off approach to sexual matters in most other areas (adultery, fornication, divorce/remarriage, etc). Reintroducing sodomy laws now would certainly be constitutional, but they would be entirely unenforceable, and would bring the law into disrepute.
Shaid is cute but utterly ruined by Colombia School of Journalism
taught to deconstruct western Judeo Christian culture
claims to be half Christian....Iraqi I think
BS
Perverted, sodomite marriage (AKA homosexuality) has been soundly defeated in every single state where it was placed on the ballot. In all 31 out of the 31 states that held referendum on the issue, the majority told the sodomites to get bent. Even in the uber-liberal (bankrupt) peoples socialist utopia of California..
I just have to laugh when I read posts by so called "libertarians" that claim republicans must adopt the entire perverted social platform of the left or continue to lose elections, and then watch folks like yourself go into a nail biting nervous fit, and start posting a twisted wad of sycophantic queer (sodomite) friendly "revisionist" history you've been indoctrinated with.
I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are responding to.
I agree with what you say about homosexual marriage, but my post was about reported Texas GOP policies to reintroduce sodomy laws (as reported in the linked article), which is a different issue entirely.
Learn to read before you post.
I’m responding to the nonsense drivel that you spewed about “sodomy laws” not having anything to do with “homosexuality”..
Why then ,pray tell, does the queer community fight to have the sodomy laws declared “unconstitutional” by activist judicial fiat? The USSC case Lawrence vs Texas was a homosexual issue.
As far as learning how to read you need to take your own advice..
Sodomy:
Cultural Dictionary
sodomy [( sod -uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. ( See pederast.)
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: ‘sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French sodomie sexual intercourse between men, from Old French, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom, from the supposed homosexual practices of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11
: the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex — sod·om·ize /’sä-d&-”mIz/ transitive verb
Note : According to the Bible, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently including anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the city of Sodom.
Are you a Texan?
friendly_doc
Since Jun 1, 2010
Welcome to FR
What I said was that homosexual acts are an example of sodomy, but that the term encompasses a lot more besides. In the AMERICAN legal tradition, the term sodomy meant a range of non-reproductive sex acts between two people of the same sex or between people of the opposite sex.
The content of the sodomy laws varied between different states (I think the ones in Texas were amended in the 1970s to exclude acts by married couples), but the purpose of the law was the same. It was an expression of communal morality and a reminder to people that sex should be about procreation.
Interestingly, at times the sodomy laws were used against heterosexual men who were accused - but acquitted - of rape. On the assumption that there is no smoke without fire, and following feminist pressure, the accusing woman was asked whether oral sex had taken place. If the answer was yes, and even if the act was consensual, the man was then charged with sodomy.
It’s true that homosexuals were pushing for the repeal of such laws (obviously homosexual sodomy is more common than heterosexual sodomy), but sodomy and homosexuality are different things.
Whether such laws should be brought back is a complicated matter. Whether we like it or not, sex of every conceivable description is now well and truly “out of the closet”, and that would put the police in a difficult position. Either they try to enforce the law properly, in which case they would have to question millions of people, or the law is left unenforced, in which case the law would be brought into disrepute.
On balance, I believe reintroducing sodomy laws (and anti-fornication and anti-adultery laws) is not a good idea at this time. In a different time and place, one may come to a different conclusion. As they say, politics is the art of the possible.
Read the definition.. sodomy = homosexuality..
This issue isn’t about “private consensual adult behaviour” its the Trojan horse method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups and their perverse effort to legally legitimize the behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children, by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a “safe” and “normal” alternative “sexual lifestyle choice” and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance of perversion, kowtow to the sodomites or else.
I’ll ask again, are you a Texan?
It's obvious that you don't care, if you did you wouldn't be the fraternal twin to atheism.
Focusing on sodomy with all we’re going through seems to be the height of stupidity IMO.
What we're "going through" is BECAUSE of our ignoring cultural matters.
Do you honestly think that a house that doesn't have it's moral foundation in order can have a sound economic foundation?
Actually, the definitions you reference, from the Legal and Cultural Dictionary, say pretty much what I said: sodomy generally means oral and anal sex between two people. A major example of sodomy is, of course homosexual sex, esp. between men, but the term is broad enough to include a lot else besides.
I agree with you about the whole issue of homosexual marriage. It is, of course, all about legitimising homosexual behaviour and, gradually, criminalising dissent. Otherwise, why push for “marriage”? There is no protection afforded by marriage that two people can’t obtain by private legal contract.
But sodomy laws have already been struck down by the US Supreme Court, and, according to this article, the GOP in Texas is proposing to bring them back. Is that something you are in agreement with? I really don’t think there’s much public support for such a move, it would create more problems than it would solve, and it shouldn’t be a priority for conservatives (at this time).
There have always been "lewd act in public place" ordinances, so yes, even "married couples" that were doing natural acts in public have been prosecuted under that statute. Considering that homosexuals have taken their sexual perversion "out of the bedroom" and made their sodomous acts of perversion "mainstream" in our society, it's time to put them back underneath the rock whence they came. What other group whose "identity" is based unnatural sex has FORCED it's way into valuable American institutions such as marriage and the nuclear family, the military, the church, education and youth mentor groups, with the intent of redefining them and eventually destroying them? None.
If you really want to bring all that stuff back - with all the possibility of governmental mischief that it entails - then you go out and tell people about it, and then ask them to vote conservative. Good luck with that.
Enforcement of public decency laws has never been deemed as "mischievous". We have laws on the books that prevent law enforcement from kicking in doors without probable cause. Your libertarian beliefs is what got our society into the trouble that it's in today, it's time we get back to the values of God, not moral relativist man.
If you're talking about enforcement of PUBLIC decency laws, that's one area in which I definitely take issue with the extremist Libertarians -- as long as we have "public commons" (and I'll leave the arguments for privatizing roads and parks, etc., for another day), then as a taxpayer I consider myself a "part owner" of those public commons; and as a shareholder, I think I have every right to cast my vote in favor of upholding some moral standards in those public commons. "Friendly_Doc", don't do it in the streets and scare the horses.
On the other hand, Seattle -- at the very moment you step off the public sidewalk and onto my private property, you lose any moral authority to regulate what sort of private foreplay my wife and I might see fit to enjoy in the privacy of our own home. That's not the enforcement of Biblical Virtue; it's a Trespassing, which is a Biblical Sin. If a man is not committing one of the Five Great Harms identified in Romans 13:1-10 by the Apostle Paul as grounds for Government prosecution (Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and/or "covetous" Abuse & Malfeasance), then His Home is His Castle. Period.
It gets somewhat trickier when two homosexuals, in the privacy of their own home, want to adopt a child, which to my way of thinking, is criminal child abuse.
I would want those same men prevented from adopting a child for exactly those activities they admit to doing in the privacy of their own home.
Pinging some Christian lawyers for their input.
The term has historical origin in the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah.. Homosexual males were sodomizing the male citizens and God destroyed the place as example..
"A major example of sodomy is, of course homosexual sex, esp. between men, but the term is broad enough to include a lot else besides".
Its called "perversion"... Are you from Texas?
Tuche!
here’s the link to the platform itself: https://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/2010_RPT_PLATFORM.pdf
If the thread stays up I’ll ping it just for the discussion purposes. So far the discussion is amazing. I will weigh in a little later. With some founders’ quotes about morality.
Many of the comments on this thread illustrate perfectly why our country is going into the abyss. It ain’t all about taxes and money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.