Anti-sodomy laws violate individual liberties

The NH Sunday News ^ | 5/11/03 | Deroy Murdock

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But arguing that "individual Liberty" is at risk is a specious sophomoric argument and sophistry pure and simple."

It is a rather crude attempt at giving weight to the sodomy argument by trying to prop it up under a rather global point, isn't it?

Have a great day! And my regards to your Mother as well.

[judgeandjury]

But Kurtz overlooks the fact that anti-sodomy laws can throw adults in jail for having consensual sex.

Sodomy is NOT sex.

[muir_redwoods]

Anyone is free to adopt any religious view. No one is free to impose it on another. Civil laws are for the protection of others. No one legitimatly possesses the authority to regulate the private consensual behaviour of others so long as no direct harm comes to non-consenting parties. You may not like the private behaviour of others and you may think it sinful, but neither you nor I nor anyone else can legitimately regulate such behaviour. It's called freedom. IMHO

[MarkL]

Right and wrong are only what God says are right and wrong, not what the Libertarian Party, NAMBLA, or the Lambda Legal Defense Fund claim.

Funny, that's the same claim made by immams declaring fatwas against infidels! As well as what islamic terrorists say, as they're slaugtering innocent civilians... You're in good company.

Mark

[Cultural Jihad]

The fallacy of your argument is that disease does not stay behind hallowed closed doors, and even if it did, it would be human beings who are suffering. Perhaps we could try to resurrect Thomas Jefferson to have him strike out the inalienable rights passages in the DOI's Preamble to make the libertarians and other social-Darwinists happy.

[lelio]

We would then have to strike down all statutes against ... adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex...

Are there statutes against those? They're grounds for divorce, but I can't see there being a state law that says anything about not having sex outside of marriage.

[Cultural Jihad]

How fortunate for you and for your loved ones that you will never require a blood transfusion, nor have to pay a higher insurance premium to treat the self-inflicted diseases of others.

[Cultural Jihad]

... but I can't see there being a state law that says anything about not having sex outside of marriage.

There were in all the states for hundreds of years, until the progressives, communists, and other Democrats started passing all this garbage so-called 'consenting adults' legislation. For your information, 'Banned in Boston' was not the name of a pre-MTV melodious troope.

[MarkL]

You know, that may be the most rational statement on the nature of marriage yet.

You may be the first person to ever accuse me of being "rational!" lol

Actually, I've got a friend who is having some serious trouble in her marriage, and it's because of her. She's decided that she's a lesbian. In fact, she had an affair with a woman last year. However, she is trying to work things out with her husband (who has been unhappy in the marriage for a number of years for other, unrelated reasons). They have a 4 year old daughter, and have decided that they WILL put their personal feelings and troubles aside for the sake of their daughter, and will do everything they can to hold the marriage together, at least until the little girl is old enough so that a divorce will not do too much harm to her. They do still love each other, but have grown apart, but are trying hard to make things for for the next 10 to 15 years for the little girl's sake.

Mark

[lelio]

I've believed for a long time that "no fault" divorce is far more detrimental to the institution of marriage than anything else, including homosexual marriage.

Good point. Take a look at No Fault car insurance states. Not only is "no fault" a complete throwing away of any rational thought (there's an accident: someone has to be at fault, or shares a percentage of the blame), but it drives up car insurance rates for everyone.
"No Fault" is just an excuse to escape reality and its consequences.

[Montfort]

I seem to remember that the people of S & G RAPED strangers of the same sex. People throughout history have been sloppy in equating raping male visitors to consenting gay men having sex with each other.

Judaism took a dim view of anything that did not help to increase the progeny of Jews, and homosexuality and Onanism do not particularly contribute to the cause of filling the world with descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it may be that God was angry that mobs were gang-raping visitors to the towns. I mean, God didn't vaporize any of the city-states of Greece, where homosexuality was rampant.

[Just mythoughts]

"moralist police", what are you talking about there is no such thing anymore policing morals.

We had a couple of perverted twisted minds that were elected two time to be our leaders, and you are worried about moralist police.

Don't worry you will get more perversion, public and private than your silly little mind can handle, because I know that I won't be the one to put an end to this obsession with perversion, however, my own reward will come from not being intimidated by perverts, whose whole reason for being is the manner of, and whom they choose to do sex.

[MarkL]

Sodomy is NOT sex.

That's certainly Bill Clinton's definition! According to dictionary.com , the definition is, "Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality."

Mark

[MHGinTN]

Hmm, therein is the key to disagreement ... Sodomites regard what they do to be sex. It isn't, and their recent hero, bill 'sinkEmperor' clinton, defined oral copulation (as one of the chosen copulatory methods of Sodomites) between genitals and oral cavity as not sex. Something is amiss, eh? It hink it's known as 'double speak', which of course is engaged for the obfuscatory value.

[MHGinTN]

Great minds? ... hehehe

[borntodiefree]

You made the best point so far....strike down all "statutes". You should go take a little trip down to your Black's Law Dictionary...Statutory Law = NonConstitutional Law... So under what jurisdiction are they operating(I won't go to far down this path and I'll try to stay on topic)?

Your are right, if bonehead wants to chase down his chicken, it is none of my business to force him by the barrel of a gun to stop. However, it is my duty to preach the gospel to him and give him every opportunity to repent from his sins.... The church is the one that is not doing its job, and from your statements, you would have the government take over the job of the church. The government does not have the constitutional ability to issue marriage licenses (permission to get married). It was "another" control agenda, which was initiated in the 1900s so a black man could marry a white woman.

I am completely against adultry, homosexuality, beastiality, etc... However, I do not possess the authority to go to my neighbors house to stop him from doing something that does not effect me or someone else in immeadiate danger, then I therefore (nor do you) have the authority to give a group of people (in this case our servant government) the authority to do the same.

As far as the treaty of Tripoli, you are in denial...This was signed by the president and approved by the senate. Many of the founding fathers believed in God, but not Christ, though they were strongly influenced by there Judeo-Christian lineage. Jesus has only one kingdom and it "is not of this world".

(The minor issue is seperate, but it can be made constitutionally illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with a child....different topic though)

[RJCogburn]

those who help them gain legal status simply because they are of SODOM those also become part of the WOE.

"Help them gain legal status"...imagine, requiring legal status. Backwards thinking, IMO.

Well, if allowing people to act in private with others of like mind condemns me to eternal woe, then bring it on.

[MarkL]

The fallacy of your argument is that disease does not stay behind hallowed closed doors, and even if it did, it would be human beings who are suffering. Perhaps we could try to resurrect Thomas Jefferson to have him strike out the inalienable rights passages in the DOI's Preamble to make the libertarians and other social-Darwinists happy.

Huh??? Are you saying that people with communicable diseases shouldn't be allowed to marry? What should be done with those people?

And what in the world are you babbling about in regards to Jefferson and the inalienable rights passages? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Why in the world would that need to be struck out for libertarians, who are far closer to "Jeffersonian Liberals" that you are!

Maybe you can try to explain what you're talking about.

Mark

[Sam Cree]

"I mean, God didn't vaporize any of the city-states of Greece, where homosexuality was rampant."

What about Atlantis? :-D

[MHGinTN]

And yet you embrace the exploitation of pre-born individual human lives on the grounds that they have no legal status for protection, clearly implying they need to 'gain legal status' to be protected by the law from premeditated killing and exploitation.