"We are all sodomites now: a case for sexual freedom" -- by Andrew Sullivan

New Republic via andrewsullivan.com ^ | March, '03 | Andrew Sullivan

[r9etb]

No.. as I said they are NOT fine with me.

What you said was that we as a society (through government) can have no say in whether or not we'll tolerate people who engage in things like bestiality or incest. You say they're not fine with you, but you're also saying that a guy has an unalienable right to bugger his cat.

What you do not believe, apparently, is that people have no right to define the social conditions in which they live. Unless those conditions happen to involve perverse sexual acts, at any rate -- in which case they can define the social conditions as they please. You can make a "logical" case for this from libertarian perspective -- you can prove anything if you start from the proper wrong assumptions. Libertarians tend to start from the fallacious position that there is no such thing as community interest.

Surely you see why this case has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage. Consensual sex has nothing to do with a contract that the state is part of.

Surely you've got your blinders on. Do you not pay attention to the news?

[r9etb]

Make that: "What you do not believe, apparently, is that people have THE right"

[sakic]

It's a good thing that you are on the internet, or you would get your face bashed in.

You type tough and your sense of humor of degrading others seems to stop when you become the "butt" of the talk. We all just can't get along.

[sakic]

Homosexuality is a capital offense in America? Which America?

[sakic]

In the end it's still up to God not Man.

[sakic]

You can substitute "people who drink alcohol" for "homosexuals" in your examples.

What should we do about that? Prohibition?

[Qwerty]

"What you said was that we as a society (through government) can have no say in whether or not we'll tolerate people who engage in things like bestiality or incest."

Yep. Until the people engaging in acts are violating other citizens' rights, I don't think the state has a right to prosecute.

"You say they're not fine with you, but you're also saying that a guy has an unalienable right to bugger his cat."

Yeah. I'm saying a guy has an inalienable right to bugger his cat so long as it isn't affecting any of your rights. I don't like it, but I can't think of a compelling reason to arrest and jail him. However, I think members of the community have the right not to hire him or serve him.

"What you do not believe, apparently, is that people have no right to define the social conditions in which they live."

Not true. We define our social conditions all the time. Do you let "animal lovers" into your home? Probably not, and if I knew any they wouldn't be coming into mine either. Still, I don't believe that people have the right to define others' social conditions when no rights are being violated.

"Libertarians tend to start from the fallacious position that there is no such thing as community interest."

What rights do "communities" have?

Surely you see why this case has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage. Consensual sex has nothing to do with a contract that the state is part of. "Surely you've got your blinders on. Do you not pay attention to the news?"

Yes, I pay attention to the news. You're still mixing legally unrelated items.

[bourbon]

I didn't know that about the casks -- either sherry-to-whiskey or vice-versa.

neither did I, until I went to Andalusia. When I visited a Jerez distillery (is that term appropriate here?), I noticed that the sherry was stored in old bourbon and sour mash casks. Most of them said Jack Daniels or Evan Williams or something like that on it. As a Southerner myself, it amused me to think that the south of Spain and the American South were linked in this way as well as others.

What's really odd is that even though I have been to jerez, scotch, and irish whiskey distilleries I have yet to visit a bourbon distillery.

I know, I know. I'm a poor namesake!

[FF578]

The America that our founders set up.

Below are some of the early Statutes Banning Sodomy, that punished the crime as a capital offense:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

[Eva]

I don't understand why the conviction was not overturned due to the illegal entry into the private residence. I don't see how it is legal for the police to enter a private home with no evidence of a crime in progress, but the neighbors word for it. I mean if I call the police and tell them that my neighbor is dealing crack out of a trailer on the side of the house. The police would either have to stake out the place or get a search warrant.

[Rodney King]

You type tough and your sense of humor of degrading others seems to stop when you become the "butt" of the talk. We all just can't get along.

I was simply pointing out that in real life when one walks into a converstaion and insults someones wife, there is a large probability that a skull bashing will be the result.

Insult me all you want. Insulting someone's wife is different. Any real man will tell you so.

[sakic]

So it's your position that someone who has homosexual sex should be killed by the state. That's civilized.

I suppose that you also agree with these same people who passed laws that blacks and women were sub-human. If you want to look to the past for your examples of civilization you can't pick and choose which ones you like or support.

Here's a great old law:

In the 1800's anyone in England who unsucessfully attempted suicide faced the death penalty.

[sakic]

Okay. I think you're an idiot. Is that better?

[Rodney King]

Okay. I think you're an idiot. Is that better?

Yes, it is. I think you are an ***********, but I would never in a million years have insulted your wife.

[man of Yosemite]

No, you just have to know your limits. Besides, God never said alcohol was a sin. He changed water into wine, and God never tempts man to sin. If drinking was a sin, Jesus would not have been raised from the dead, for he would have sinned by drinking alcohol. These two things are not the same, and drunkeness has no approval from God either.

[man of Yosemite]

Some men hear God and repent, escaping the judgment of God. Others continue on in sin and perish. Jesus didn't come down from heaven to judge man, but he didn't keep his mouth shut either. The choices we make do have eternal consequences.

[FF578]

In the 1800's anyone in England who unsucessfully attempted suicide faced the death penalty.

I would agree with that.

[FF578]

I do not believe that Women should be allowed to vote or hold any position of authority over a man. This does not make them sub-human, as women have very important jobs in raising children and careing for the home.

Ann Coulter recently brought up the point that since women were allowed to vote, the nation began to decline. Slowly at first until the 1960's when we slipped off the edge of a cliff.

[FF578]

If a person calls in that someone is in the middle of an assault, and Police arrive on scene and hear the sounds of a possible assault in progress, the police have a duty to enter to prevent injury to human life.

That is exactly what occured.

[Krafty123]

Talmud, Yuma 85:B; explaning Leviticus 18:5