The Gay Shibboleth - Opposition to homosexual behavior may now be a bar to high office

Christianity Today ^ | August 2007

[Murray the R]

Her intent with regard to her property is controlling even after her death (otherwise wills would be inherently invalid), and we may safely assume that neither she nor her next of kin wanted her body urinated on.

But here's the point. Say she has no next of kin. Who or what was injured?

As I said, her own pre-death wishes with regard to her property.

[Mrs. Don-o]

On the subject of the neighbor who urinated on the body of the dead woman: Your body isn't only "property." It's something that, even in death, has meaning in terms of human dignity: meaning that goes beyond individual considerations. Some forms of disrespect or mutilation go beyond an offense to the (deceased) individual and offend our shared humanity per se. No way do I think the offender would be off the hook if he recorded the deceased saying "OK, urinate on me" before she died.

On the subject of anal sodomy: Though I would strongly oppose any kind of general sexual surveillance (which is repugnant to privacy), I remain convinced that any sodomized person ought to be able to bring charges afterwards, and consent should no defense. It's not even a simply a medical matter of abrasion or stretching of muscle fibers or whatever. Anal sexual penetration is inherently abusive.

Prosecution would be contingent, as I said, on the complaint of the sodomized person. So let your "occasional," "properly prepared" rectum enthusiast be quite, quite sure that the penetrated party is, and will remain, utterly delighted. Perhaps that would add the fisson of trust and risk.

[Murray the R]

any sodomized person ought to be able to bring charges afterwards, and consent should no defense. It's not even a simply a medical matter of abrasion or stretching of muscle fibers or whatever. Anal sexual penetration is inherently abusive.

I hear none of "natural law rightly defined" there ... just a gut reaction of ickiness.

[MEGoody]

Knowledge beats ignorance every time.

And interest in justifying what one is doing beats honesty every time.

Sure they will

Everything I've read says otherwise, but you are free to provide medical documentation to back your claim.

[Murray the R]

Everything I've read says otherwise

What exactly have you read?

[MEGoody]

So I take it you cannot provide a medical source for your claim that no physical damage will occur during anal sex if ‘proper preparation’ takes place. Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ha! Oh, no, it'd not the ick factor. If that were the case, childbirth would never happen. Anal penetration would be abusive even if it were as aesthetic as "O mio babbino caro."

Let me get back to you about Natural Law. Right now I've got chicken balsamic in the skillet, And a couple of hungry boys here.