Posted on 01/17/2003 2:25:27 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
Sodomy in many areas is copulation that does not involve complimentary genitalia (among humans) so even beastiality would be an act of sodomy.
Are you deliberately dense?
Do you have trouble with the definition of what "is" is?
Hmmm. But this isn't about bestiality. That's a whole 'nother can of worms. Just like murdering somebody in the privacy of your own home. Altogether different set of premises, arguments- it's not germane to this issue. That's just like pro choice people saying it's a logical inconsistency to oppose abortion and support the death penalty. It's a false line of logic because the situations don't have the same premises.
I personally don't care if Texas has these laws or not. I don't live in Texas. Hell, I don't even live in America. So I don't have a personal stake in this. This is purely an intellectual exercise for me and an examination of the purpose of law and to ask how far it is permissable for gov't to go in detecting and enforcing a law.
My questions are still out there.
You see, I'm not arguing that people have the right to bugger each other. I'm trying to demonstrate that in order to properly enforce the law you would almost inevitably infringe on someone's 4th ammendment rights. I don't know why people get in a huff over this. It's no different than discussing physics or odd geometric patterns.
I'm sorry I posted the last one before I got to this. Have I called you names? You don't know anything about me. Because I might have a different opinion than you about any given issue isn't reason enough not to be civil. I won't discuss this with you if you want to get juvenile about it. I can go argue with a liberal if I want to get that sort of behaviour.
The previous president asserted that oral sex was not sex and that is could mean different things.
Both arguments matter not to the issues at hand.
The thing is, it must be nitpicked because as I stated before if the definition is too vague, all manner of activities can be construed to be sodomy. Did Clinton have oral sex? Of course he did- you'll get no argument from me on that. He was stimulated to the point of orgasm by Ms Lewinsky.
I don't care about the definition of sodomy- I just want something- anything- as a jumping off point. I'll make it simple. Any kissing below the navel and above the knee is oral sodomy. Any man to man penile contact below the belt and above the knees is anal sodomy. The definition doesn't matter.
Now, how do you go about enforcing that law? (Note, just two men laying under the sheets, by this definition wouldn't be sodomy- or even two naked men kissing for that matter.) What would be grounds for probable cause? Would an anonymous tip be enough? Would probable cause be enough reason to set up a sting operation where the agents used infrared imaging to see through the suspects' walls? Tape record the goings on in the house? Plant secret cameras?
That's where you start getting into the peoples' Fourth Ammendment areas. Is the law you're trying to enforce worth the encroachment? Is there an overwhelming public need? Is there not some level of crime that would be beneath these intrusions and if so what should be the criteria for deciding what's not important enough? And since it's a Fourth Ammendment protection involved, why is not ok for the people to use the appeals process right up to the Supreme Court?
And again, what is the point to the law? Is it to prevent deviant behaviour or is it simply to punish deviant behaviour?
Sodomy is about genital contact to orafices that are not genitals (penises and vaginas, complimentary) if you are having trouble keeping up.
Again you bring up "how will they find such behavior" yet you dismissed the same question with regards to beastiality.
Difficulty in prosecution does not invalidate the law.
The law against homosexual sodomy made acting on homosexual impulses illegal (homosexual thoughts were still permissible). Even homosexual porn was not outlawed by community standards.
Cases are so few are far between that these men had to create the circumstance by which they were caught. Their gay neighbor (an ex-lover) placed the fraudulent call (and was sentenced to 30 days for fraud) alledging armed assault. The 2 men left their door unlocked. The officers responded to the emergency call, entered the apartment (unlikely that they did not announce their presence on entry) and eventually entered the bedroom where the saw the 2 men still engaged in the act of sodomy (and as of yet, it has not been disclosed if it was oral or anal sex).
The men chose not to plea bargain and get the charges reduced (wouldn't leave a case to raise up to the supreme court).
See, I live here in Houston and heard the case from the day it occurred and heard how they intended to use it to overturn the state law against sodomy.
But you'd rather believe their mythical tale of a boogeyman big brother snooping in their bedroom.
Should we eliminate laws against adultry (consenting adults)? Even though such laws aid in the instance of divorce (spouse committed a criminal act in violation of the bond of marriage).
This is exactly the kind of law which lends itself to selective prosecution.
Essentially it is just lying there waiting to be used against a politically unpopular person for reasons having nothing to do with the law.
You admit the law is essentially unused. For this reason alone it should be removed. If the state legislature is too dense to realize this and act on it, then SCOTUS should.
As much as I am against homosexual behavior, I don't think it should be a crime.
I just wish they would also act on the myriad of other laws in similar categories.
Basic issue is that if the law is either not enforced or unenforceable, it should not exist.
Well, that's a definition. The definition is beside the point. The point is, how do you detect the crime without violating someone's Fourth Ammendment Rights- and violating someone's Constitutional Rights is a wee bit more than "difficulty in prosecution". You can't violate someone's Constitutional protected rights. You bust in somebody's door and find a ton of marijuana and you didn't have a search warrant or a damned good reason for going in- guess what?
The government cannot deny you your freedom to worship- people would readily agree on that without discussion. They also cannot deny you your Fourth Ammendment rights and that should also be just as easily agreed upon. I'll just paste those in here:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
My point is not about what constitutes sodomy- I personally don't care about the definition of sodomy. The point is, how do you detect this crime without violating this ammendment? What should constitute probable cause? Ok, someone is looking through the window and sees it and swears to it and the police manage to get there in time to catch it- fair enough, that's clear cut. But apart from that, how can anybody swear that two men are in the bedroom buggering one another? I could just as easily make the same claim about any two men behind who go behind closed doors.
Also, this isn't the first thread on this topic. I am aware that the men concocted this event to overthrow the law. Don't assume too much about what I think or believe. It doesn't change anything.
What's your hangup with bestiality? Why do you keep dragging that into this discussion? What has that to do with this topic?
(homosexual thoughts were still permissible)
As are all thoughts. That goes without saying.
Adultery, again- another matter. Marriage is a legal contract. Divorce is a civil law suit. The parties there have taken it upon themselves to involve the State in the affair by taking out a marriage license to have the State recognize their union as legal.
And my last question from the other post is still out there- what is the purpose of the law? Is it to protect the community? What exactly?
Same thing incest laws are for. And no, it's not to prevent babies from being born with serious birth defects, since incest is just as illegal even if one or both participants are sterile. The laws, be they against incest, sodomy, or whatever, exist because the determination has been made that the activities in question are wrong in every sense, with no possible redeeming value. That doesn't mean that all activities covered by such laws are necessarily wrong, but that's the determination that's been made. I realize that such a statement is anathema from a doctrinaire libertarian standpoint, but libertarianism is not the Only Way That Can Be. Human beings are social animals, and even in an individualistic country like America, they function as part of a social apparatus. And laws are a component of such an apparatus.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the 4th amendment, because there's no suggestion that it's been violated. If it is, then you'll have a constitutional case, but not before then.
In many states (I'm inclined to say 'most', but I don't know that for sure), adultery is not a crime. In the no-fault divorce states, its not even the basis for division of marital property, alimony, or even child custody, unless the adultery has elements that impact directly (not indirectly!) on the upbringing of the children, and its up to the complaining spouse to show that.
Quaint, ancient notions of who can sleep with who under the law have been undergoing modifications for several decades now, and if one wishes to live in a state that hasn't changed its laws since being granted statehood (when these concepts were derived from the books of one particular religion), then by all means, live there.
Where the problem comes in, is when those quaint notions come into conflict with where the rest of the nation as a whole has progressed. At one time, this country was content to allow certain states to forbid intermarrying of the races, or for contraceptives to be sold to married couples, but it took the Supreme Court to say that understanding of our Constitutional rights has evolved to account for things unimagined by our Founding Fathers, such as blacks being free, or medicines that could effectively prevent pregnancy. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, Thomas Jefferson wrote laws regarding sodomy, but he also would have had opinions on the legality of slavery that would no longer be valid today. Most of us reject the philosophy of "either something is 100% right, or its 100% wrong" (religious fundamentalists may have trouble grasping anything but this concept), so we can honor the bulk and majority of TJ's work, while rightfully rejecting his ideas that we find outmoded.
Give up the fight on gays, we have really serious enemies to deal with these days.
You keep stepping around "icky" sexual kinks. Homosexuality is a sexual kink. Discuss one, discuss them all. If something is going on in a bedroom, how does law enforcement enforce the law? You say that such laws should be dropped because they can't be enforced 100% of the time.
We can keep going round and round in circles on this.
The Supreme Court already determined that such laws can be passed (and again, as I stated earlier, Thomas Jefferson himself supported such laws).
Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution; the Constitution was (mostly) written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (of course; I srongly doubt either would have any objections to the current Texas law).
Arizona House Votes to Repeal Adultery, Sodomy LawsFrontiers, April 30, 1999
7985 Santa Monica Blvd. #109, West Hollywood, CA 90046
Email: webmaster@frontiersweb.com
The Arizona state House voted April 22 to repeal laws against adultery, cohabitation and sodomy, which members called "archaic and silly." The same day, they also voted to extend the protection of domestic violence laws to people of the same-sex who live together. The votes were a victory for the two openly gay state representatives, Republican Steve May and Democrat Ken Cheuvront, who sponsored the amendments. Moderate Republicans joined Democrats in supporting both measures. "It’s a great day for freedom in Arizona," May said.
Freedom to commit adultery? This is worth celebrating? Surely a culture in decline. Back to the article...
May’s celebration could be short-lived, however. The bill (SB1396) – a larger measure including several changes to Arizona’s criminal laws – will likely go to a joint House-Senate panel to work out differences between the two versions of the measure.That committee is likely to be dominated by social conservatives who oppose the new provisions.
May sponsored an amendment that would repeal state laws against adultery, cohabitation, "infamous crimes against nature" and "lewd and lascivious acts." Cheuvront said the latter two laws outlaw "basically any form of sex except intercourse in the missionary position."
All four laws are misdemeanors and haven’t been enforced for 30 years, Cheuvront said.
Still have quite a few states that outlaw it.
Funny that he would bemoan that it seems almost random that one state would prohibit a consensual act, while another permits it and yet when the federal government strong arms states into norming a law to an equal standard he isn't happy either.
States rights gives states the right to pass and enforce their laws.
IT HAS ALWAYS STRUCK me as odd that a consensual act should be legal in one state and illegal in another. What is it about stepping over the imaginary line dividing state from state that converts you from a criminal to a noncriminal?
...
The "Age of Consent" column applies to sex only, not alcohol—due to federal pressure, alcohol is limited to persons twenty-one and older.
I include the link for chart purposes only.
Laws don't make people remain faithful, or engage in behaviors with other consenting adults that are prohibited in some people's versions of holy books. Its always been up to the individuals in any adult relationship to define the continuation of that relationship. Adultery has always existed, but we have to find ways of dealing with its effects responsibly, and a simple prohibition with massive legal sanctions just isn't gonna do it.
I'm certain that the AZ representatives that you quoted were talking about the sodomy portion of the law, and not the adultery part. Sure, I believe in legislatures being the ones to deal with laws, but if they fail (as you seem to be hoping with the joint House-Senate panel), then the courts will inevitably step in. That which looked reasonable in 1953 may not look so by 2003.
Why have a legal marriage at all then?
I refered to them as libertines because they seek to overthrow laws against sexual practices. What made "what they were in favor of" wrong were the laws that prohibited the actions.
A component of civilization is the rules of behavior that we as a society choose to follow. If there exists a law against something, it is considered wrong. Laws can be changed, legalizing the acts.
In the case of adultery, how many spouses consent to being cheated on? Some would consider such marriages to be a sham and a matter of convenience to "stay together" (the Clintons, the Gullianis,...)
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.