Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties
The NH Sunday News ^ | 5/11/03 | Deroy Murdock

Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn

IN AN April 30 essay titled "The Libertarian Question," my fellow National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz argues that laws against sodomy, adultery and incest should remain on the books largely to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage.

By stigmatizing sexual relations outside that institution, Kurtz believes "the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sexuality helps to cement marital unions, and helps prevent acts of adultery that would tear those unions apart."

Kurtz also states that keeping adult incest illegal will reduce the odds of sex between adults and their minor relatives. Anti-pedophilia laws, virtually everyone agrees, should be energetically enforced, whether or not the child molesters and their victims are family members.

But Kurtz overlooks the fact that anti-sodomy laws can throw adults in jail for having consensual sex. Approval or disapproval of homosexual, adulterous or incestuous behavior among those over 18 is not the issue. Americans should remain free to applaud such acts or, conversely, denounce them as mortal sins. The public policy question at hand is whether American adults should or should not be handcuffed and thrown behind bars for copulating with people of the same sex, beyond their own marriages or within their bloodlines.

If this sounds like hyperbole, consider the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, currently before the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 17, 1998, Harris County sheriffs deputies responded to a phony complaint from Roger Nance, a disgruntled neighbor of John Geddes Lawrence, then 55. They entered an unlocked door to Lawrence's eighth-floor Houston apartment looking for an armed gunman. While no such intruder existed, they did discover Lawrence having sex with another man named Tyron Garner, then 31.

"The police dragged them from Mr. Lawrence's home in their underwear," says Brian Chase, a staff attorney with the Dallas office of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (www.lambdalegal.org) which argued on the gentlemen's behalf before the Supreme Court. "They were put in jail for 24 hours. As a result of their conviction, they would have to register as sex offenders in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. If this arrest had taken place in Oklahoma, they could have faced 10 years in prison. It's kind of frightening." Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 each plus $141.25 in court costs.

Ironically, Chase adds by phone, "At the time the Texas penal code was revised in 1972, heterosexual sodomy was removed as a criminal offense, as was bestiality."

Even though some conservatives want government to discourage non-procreative sex, those Houston sheriff's deputies could not have apprehended a husband and wife engaged in non-reproductive oral or anal sex (although married, heterosexual couples still can be prosecuted for the same acts in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia). And were Lawrence caught naked in bed with a Rottweiler, consenting or otherwise, the sheriffs could not have done more than suggest he pick on someone his own species. However, because Lawrence preferred the company of a willing, adult human being of his same sex, both were shuttled to the hoosegow.

"The point is, this could happen to anyone," Chase says. "This was the result of a malicious prank call made by a neighbor who was later arrested and jailed for 15 days for filing a false report."

As for grownups who lure children into acts of homosexuality, adultery and incest, the perpetrators cannot be imprisoned quickly enough. The moment members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association go beyond discussion of pedophilia to actions in pursuit thereof, someone should call 911 and throw into squad cars the men who seek intimate contact with males under 18. Period.

The libertarian question remains before Stanley Kurtz and the Supreme Court. Should laws against adult homosexuality, adultery and incest potentially place taxpaying Americans over 18 behind bars for such behavior? Priests, ministers, rabbis and other moral leaders may decry these activities. But no matter how much people may frown upon these sexual appetites, consenting American adults should not face incarceration for yielding to such temptations.

Here is the libertarian answer to this burning question: Things deemed distasteful should not always be illegal. This response is one that every freedom-loving American should embrace.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: beastiality; court; criminal; deroymurdock; deviance; deviant; family; father; gay; gaytrolldolls; glsen; homosexual; homosexualagenda; houston; husband; law; libertarians; marriage; morality; mother; pflag; propaganda; same; sex; sodomy; sodomylaws; supreme; texas; wife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-472 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I think God would differ on this issue. Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? But a lot of people don't care what God thinks anymore. That is why we have abortion.
2 posted on 05/11/2003 7:11:44 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
While no such intruder existed, they did discover Lawrence having sex with another man named Tyron Garner, then 31.

That isn't sex, that is sodomy.
3 posted on 05/11/2003 7:12:41 AM PDT by buffyt (Can you say President Hillary, Mistress of Darkness? Me Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
That is why we have abortion.
Or Bill Bennett at the slot machines.
4 posted on 05/11/2003 7:16:37 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
I think God would differ on this issue. Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Wasn't there something about Lot, that 'virtuous' man, offering his daughters to visitors to use for sex? I guess God doesn't want us to have laws against procuring.

5 posted on 05/11/2003 7:20:20 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
laws against sodomy, adultery and incest should remain on the books largely to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage.

Laws against sodomy do nothing to protect marriage. As many married people commit sodomy as single people, so the cause and effect is specious.

Laws regarding incest exist to protect the overall gene pool, since children resulting from incestuous conception often magnify genetic defects that would be diluted from conception outside the bloodline. These laws have no effect on marriage, nor were they ever designed to.

The only laws dealing directly with heterosexual marriage are those regarding adultery, which, by definition, only exists outside marriage and can thus be considered a direct threat to the institution. Yet few states have laws against adultery any more, and the few that do enforce them so irregularly (if at all) as to render them moot.

God's laws, not the state's, should govern morality.

6 posted on 05/11/2003 7:20:50 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

Laws against murder violate my individual liberties when I commute on the expressway every day.

Laws against Bank Robbery violate my individual liberty when I want money for free.

However, if I relabel "Sodomy" as "Sex", "Murder", as "Self-Expression", and "Bank Robbery" as "Do-it-yourself Withdrawal",I suppose I could make a case of the Law making me a victim.

7 posted on 05/11/2003 7:22:59 AM PDT by Gorzaloon (Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"offering his daughters to visitors to use for sex"

You need to spend more time reading the WORD.

Two separate incidents and no Lot did not offer his daughters to visitors.

Obviously you don't really care what our Heavenly Father says or you would not twist what was Written!
8 posted on 05/11/2003 7:25:06 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
Maybe you missed the web site you are on...it is called "FreeRepublic". Though Sodomy is against God's law, it is a decision between two sinners. A crime is when one person is hurt or damaged by another...everything else is crapola. God already has punishment for them i.e. aids, other STDs, and lets not forget HELL.

I would prefer to live in a true "free republic" where the only crimes that are prosecuted are those where another person is injured...(Please explain how this occured).

Sin's (no matter how distasteful) are not crimes in unless they hurt someone else against their will. These sins are punished by God, and it is the responsibility of the disciples of Christ to bring these people to the cross, not to the jail cell.
9 posted on 05/11/2003 7:27:54 AM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn

ISAIAH 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. WOE unto their SOUL! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
10 posted on 05/11/2003 7:27:57 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

Hell, anti-anything laws violate individual liberties.
By definition fercryingout loud!

Anti-murder laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-pedophilia laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-robbery laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-mugging laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-embezzlement laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-smoking laws violate individual liberties.
Anti-Second-Amendment laws violate individual liberties.
Etc.
Etc.

Cool.
The perverts perhaps are getting a glimpse (finally!) of the point that Santorum was trying to make?

11 posted on 05/11/2003 7:52:27 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Laws regarding incest exist to protect the overall gene pool, since children resulting from incestuous conception often magnify genetic defects that would be diluted from conception outside the bloodline. These laws have no effect on marriage, nor were they ever designed to.

Am I the only one who sees the moronic and perverse (and pervert) logic in these two sentences?

12 posted on 05/11/2003 7:58:43 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Yes, good point, all laws violate "individual liberties." The question is more which laws are necessary. As a libertarian, my belief is that equality before the law for all is the cornerstone on which individual liberty rests.
13 posted on 05/11/2003 7:59:18 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
"Though sodomy is against God's law, it is a decision between two sinners."

This is not about stopping the sinners, it is about giving "legal status" to method of sex.

There is no way to stop the sinner, they have freewill, however what you ignore is that "status of a nation" as a whole who "gives" what is not theirs to "give" legal status a "civil right" based upon method of sex act with "consent".

This is no longer about punishment for sin it has moved into the "legal" arena. Allowing "legal" status to sodomy with "consent" makes the nation as a whole a willing participant.

Like Abraham who asked our Heavenly Father "preadventure there was but 10 righetous left in Sodom" it Sodom would not be destroyed, what you are advocating by giving legal status makes US the one and same as Sodom.

This is what I stand against making us, our legal system one and the same as Sodom.
14 posted on 05/11/2003 8:04:28 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Anti-murder laws violate individual liberties.
No they don't. Think about it from the vantage point of the person being murdered.
All your anti- laws are perfectly in line with individual liberties: the right to live your live without force by another individual. Your property is yours, and can only be taken away by force. Therefore anti-theft laws jibe with individual liberties.

of the point that Santorum was trying to make?

I must of missed that point. That he wants to dish out punishment for what he thinks god thinks is a sin? Isn't that up for god to decide? Leave actual crimminal cases for man to judge on, and leave the other stuff up to god.
15 posted on 05/11/2003 8:04:48 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
As a libertarian, my belief is that equality before the law for all is the cornerstone on which individual liberty rests.

Unfortunately, since criminal laws do exist by the Social Contract and common consent, the extent to which they apply to certain criminals that you have sympathy for creates a dilemma, doesn't it.

There are means to remedy that. Selective enforcement or special group dispensation aren't it.

16 posted on 05/11/2003 8:09:50 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; Kevin Curry
Consenting to an evil deed makes it neither right nor tolerable. The Libertarians are advocating a form of infantilism: "I want, and therefore give me!"
17 posted on 05/11/2003 8:10:59 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
"the extent to which they apply to certain criminals that you have sympathy for creates a dilemma, doesn't it."

Can you elaborate on that a little? Sorry, I am being dense this morning.

18 posted on 05/11/2003 8:13:11 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

Well said. There is no inequality, no discrimination in the law at all. They are free to marry and have morally-licit relations if they want to. There are only two sexes, not four or six or eight.

19 posted on 05/11/2003 8:14:34 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Anti-murder laws violate individual liberties.
No they don't. Think about it from the vantage point of the person being murdered.

No, why should I?
I would rather remain on-topic.

We are having this discussion because the article would elevate the status of the criminal to that of a victim.
Your tortured logic would have me do the same.

Sorry

20 posted on 05/11/2003 8:16:41 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I just want to state that prior to my common law marriage to my horse, Nelli, we were celibate. Of course there was a cousin of mine who co-mingled with a sheep prior to marriage, but then again he had had relations with 5 of his 12 daughters too.

Gotta go, I hear Nelli getting ready out in the barn.

21 posted on 05/11/2003 8:17:53 AM PDT by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
I must of [sic] missed that point.

As you continue to. Must be by choice.

He was repeating the Supreme Court legal point that once you argue that the state can't sanction one criminal behavior, it must, logically then, cease to sanction all similar behavior.
Not rocket science.

22 posted on 05/11/2003 8:21:51 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
As many married people commit sodomy as single people, so the cause and effect is specious.

Even if your statement were supported by fact, it remains inaccurate; this is a poor use of the word, specious; actually, a specious use of it.

23 posted on 05/11/2003 8:22:36 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Lot also bred with his daughters.
24 posted on 05/11/2003 8:22:57 AM PDT by tangerine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
You are in error, all it does is nullify a law saying something is illegal.

The government should have no say (and via the constitutions of the US and the states they don't) on ANY matter between consenting adults on sex or any other issue, as long as it does not violate the rights of people outside the activity.

This is not an approval by the government, it would be the government taking the rightful stand that they do not have "jurisdiction" in the matter.

In addition, you would be in error if you believe this is a "Christian" nation.

Treaty of Tripoli
“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”

25 posted on 05/11/2003 8:26:01 AM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Your tortured logic would have me do the same.
Huh? You're the one that brought up the anti-murder laws are anti-individual liberties. I'm the one pointing out the fallacy in that argument.
26 posted on 05/11/2003 8:26:23 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
** Domestic Partners vs Families **

On St. Valentine's Day, 1991, San Francisco began the registration of "domestic partners."

"What's so wrong with extending the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy? Don't they just want to be left alone to live their lives?"

If that were so, just look at the self-inflicted disease they suffer from. If they'd listened to religion, they'd all be alive right now. We told them not to do that, and they went ahead and thumbed their noses at us, and did it. Now they're dying, and we're supposed to bail them out. They try to make all these plays for sympathy. Let them do what they want to? In other words, let them jump off the bridge if they want to? Let them play Russian Roulette if they want to? Is there any kind of behavior we shouldn't allow? So your neighbor moves in next door and starts having marital relations with a horse. Are you going to feel good about that? Are you going to feel good about raising your kids next to that guy?

We all have an interest in the general moral level of society, because if that level goes down, we all suffer, through diseases, for instance. Our kids grow up in this climate where they're encouraged to engage in these really bizarre behaviors, that'll end up hurting them. We have an interest in that.

Also, families are falling apart. One half of all children in California live in divorced families. A lot of kids have no mom or dad, so they're deprived of a parent they really need. Every child needs a mom, needs a dad. They need both, for their own psychological health. There was a study in the paper that said children from divorced families have a lot more psychological problems than children in families with both parents, where both parents are there. So now we have all these mental health problems coming up down the road.

Society has an interest in maintaining the INTEGRITY of the family, and making the family a really strong, stable structure, because that's where the new members of our society learn how to behave and learn to treat each other in a good way. So by allowing ANYBODY to come along and say they're a married couple, no matter what, that would DESTROY the family. And that's going to destroy our whole society, because the family is the basic unit of society.

The "Anything Goes" attitude is so destructive to not only our society, but to us individually. But people claim: "Oh, I tolerate homosexuals, because I'm compassionate." They try to use that argument. But actually, how about having some compassion for all the people who are INJURED by allowing this to go on? Not just the people who get AIDS, such as the kids that come up thinking that they should go out and engage in these activities and get these horrible diseases, and compassion for children growing up in families that are all split up and broken.

It's sort of a very one-sided "compassion."


27 posted on 05/11/2003 8:28:49 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I think many taboos, such as eating pork and sodomy, have their roots in observed negative consequences. In the case of pork trichinosis would have been a major problem in ancient societies without the knowledge of microscopic organisms. In the case of sodomy, the human anus is not designed for the kind of abuse inherent in using it for a sexual organ and becomes an easy pathway for the spread of pathogens. The widespread outbreak of AIDS in the gay community of the 80's is proof that this basic fact has not changed. Heterosexual sodomy coupled with adultery has had the same effect in Africa from what I understand. Therefore a society has the right and obligation to impose rules of behavior that protect society at large from a very real threat linked to sodomy.
28 posted on 05/11/2003 8:28:51 AM PDT by oncebitten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
Right, Buffy, but tolerance does not mean approval.
29 posted on 05/11/2003 8:29:27 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn

Tolerating evil makes one just as guilty as the doer of evil. It is evil to tolerate evil.

30 posted on 05/11/2003 8:32:47 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What's your point?
31 posted on 05/11/2003 8:32:56 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
By discussing and/or debating one implicitly admits that there is something to debate and/or discuss. There is not.The only thing your trash office holders understand is money and votes. At a minimum write your office holders and express your opposition. Next donate to those office seekers who will help suppress homosexuality and its expression.
32 posted on 05/11/2003 8:34:00 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
"The point is, this could happen to anyone," Chase says.

Actually, this could not happen to anyone, you nitwit.

33 posted on 05/11/2003 8:34:22 AM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon; Publius6961
You guys just gotta be able to make a better argument than that!
34 posted on 05/11/2003 8:37:14 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lodwick

What can one say? The poor, oppressed managers, bankers, lawyers, employers, and all other lumpenjaded need societal protections!

35 posted on 05/11/2003 8:39:19 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
This is not about stopping the sinners, it is about giving "legal status" to method of sex

OMfriggin'G......the moralist police are just tooooooooo much.

36 posted on 05/11/2003 8:39:51 AM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
If the single most important and inviolate standard is that consenting adults (or possibly even consenting minors of roughly equal ages, but let us avoid the minor's issues for now) have innate rights of privacy (and intimate association?) that make it unconstitutional to outlaw or even condemn any consensual and freely joined act between them, then we would have to strike down ANY statute that would discourage ANY adult from freely participating in ANY intimate acts with ANY other adult.

We would then have to strike down all statutes against sodomy, homosexuality, incest between adult siblings of same or opposite genders, incest between parents and adult children of any gender, adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, bigamy and other group "marital" relationships (whether the abundance is females, males or both), prostitution both male and female, sadomasochism (even leading to death? Assisted suicide?), and other activities that I will not describe in detail. This standard could NOT just apply to same-gender "intimate" relationships. If privacy and adult consent are the highest law then all of these acts and more would have to be legalized.

Besides, those who wrote and signed the Treaty of Tripoli lied, at least this once, and you have fallen for it, or are simply desperately wishing it were true.
37 posted on 05/11/2003 8:46:57 AM PDT by Geritol (...so hard to get asbestos when you need it....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
In Texas, by definition in the State statutes, sodomy (defined as any contact between one person's oral/anal cavity, and another person's genitalia) is considered to be "deviant sexual intercourse", and by Texas law, some people can freely engage in the practice of "deviant sexual intercourse" while other people can go to jail and/or be fined.

Is that equality in the eyes of the law?

Does that law, in and of itself, create a separate but equal situation?

Does the Texas situation create an equal protection under the law constitutional argument?
38 posted on 05/11/2003 8:47:34 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
"all it does is nullify a law saying something is illegal"

Actually, the government is "THE PEOPLE". Since in that document at its very foundation state "RIGHTS given to the individual by the CREATOR no government can take, lets it be known where "RIGHTS" come from. Our Heavenly Father sent us a letter giving the RIGHT & WRONG of his creation, and what happens when His little creatures ignore HIM!

We in this evolutionary stage of man becoming "gods" ignore the Creator and exactly what it is that brings about our blessings and curses.

The constitution does not give "civil rights" this was done via man's evolving of a so called living document.

"TREATY of TRIPOLI" man's treaty, it a statement of man based upon what? Wake up every day and thank man for that TREATY of TRIPOLI!
39 posted on 05/11/2003 8:49:30 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Hello again!

I would love to engage you again, but after the bijol and caldo fiasco of yesterday (I still don't have a recipe), I refuse to.

Your post is off topic.
I do not wish to argue Texas law.

The topic is Laws Violate Individual Liberty.
A self-evident and redundant post.
And a crummy way to argue for pro-pervert rights.

Happy Mother's Day!

40 posted on 05/11/2003 8:56:42 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
Quote:
That isn't sex, that is sodomy.
Unquote

So, what, in your mind, constitutes 'normal sexual relations between consenting married adults'. Do the lights have to be off and do both partners need to have at least one foot on the floor?
41 posted on 05/11/2003 8:59:49 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
POINT being that via a letter sent to us, and yes everybody has a right to believe or NOT, states very cleary, the METHOD OF OPERATION of those of SODOM mind.

"THEY DECLARE THEIR SIN AS SODOM, THEY HIDE IT NOT"

What is being demanded by these with the mind and sin of SODOM is "SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS" based solely on "type" of "SEX" done with "CONSENT", a "CIVIL RIGHT"!

Now "WOE unto their SOUL" is not speaking to a flesh body, but to the spirit body and if their is a WOE to them because of their sin, delcaring it, not hiding it, then those who help them gain legal status simply because they are of SODOM those also become part of the WOE.
42 posted on 05/11/2003 8:59:58 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
The problem is that the Texas case will set precedent for all the nation.

Targeted laws hurt.

P.S. I am getting the recipe from Mom again...sit tight.
43 posted on 05/11/2003 9:02:08 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Most goldminers used to blame stuff on the ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
This is not about stopping the sinners, it is about giving "legal status" to method of sex.

Bingo. You can't demand full faith and credit under the US Constitution for a license issued in one state which implies an illegal act in another. That scenario weakens the argument for "gay marriage", so the gays are attacking the statutory foundation of their legal difficulty.

God's law doesn't matter to these people, just the dependant insurance plan and survivor benefits. If they get this crap through, Divorce Court will eventually be a real circus....

44 posted on 05/11/2003 9:03:24 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
You guys just gotta be able to make a better argument than that!

Well, if changing the subject is your idea of a "better" argument, plese, do continue with your delusion.

Read the title of the thread again. The words actually are very common and simple...

45 posted on 05/11/2003 9:04:47 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be illegal? No, since big govt busting down doors for private acts between consenting adults is MORE wrong.
46 posted on 05/11/2003 9:09:02 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute." - Demolition Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
God's laws, not the state's, should govern morality.

Most felonies, as defined by the states, are morality laws. Stealing, murder, perjury: those all come out of that list of top 10 that God wrote in stone and gave to Moses.

In this article, the neighbor was arrested and given 15 days for bearing false witness.
47 posted on 05/11/2003 9:09:19 AM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Even though some conservatives want government to discourage non-procreative sex,

Which legislatures are pursuing bans on condoms and the pill?
48 posted on 05/11/2003 9:10:31 AM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The problem is that the Texas case will set precedent for all the nation.

It may be a problem for some, but not for me.
I saw this thread as an intellectual free-for-all based on its title.

Muddying the subject of discussion never turns up the light, but it certainly turns up the heat!
There are many laws I have problems with in many areas. But arguing that "individual Liberty" is at risk is a specious sophomoric argument and sophistry pure and simple.

Best regards to your mother on this special day.

49 posted on 05/11/2003 9:11:08 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Am I the only one who sees the moronic and perverse (and pervert) logic in these two sentences?

Apparently you're the only one who can't differentiate between genetic probabilities and morality engineering. Promoting marriage may or may not be a good SOCIAL idea. Preventing birth defects by limiting incestuous sexual relations has an undeniable BIOLOGICAL benefit.

50 posted on 05/11/2003 9:12:56 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-472 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson