The first part is nonsense, "common good" is a matter of opinion.
The common good means the good of society. That much is unarguable. As an organizing principle of society, what is the alternative to pursuing the common good?
The second part is none of your business.
Normally yes, if the behavior is behind closed doors. But what if it's made public?
All sin does. And law should be ordered to promoting the common good.
I think the "common good" would be served if you were not allowed to speak. See how that works?
No. You need to provide a reasonable explanation of your assertion proceeding from First Principles.
I have never attempted to justify so called evil behavior. Straw man.
As long as you don't assert a "right" to homosexual activity which is intrinsically evil, I can agree with you.
However, such a law would make it possible to "clean out" public bathrooms, etc.
There are laws against certain sexual behavior public, homo and hetro. No sodomy laws are needed for this.
What about the case in point?
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Define abnormal so everyone agrees about what it is. Your interpretation is different than mine.
That's the dictionary definition. I agree with you regarding "abnormality." Unnatural acts can be determined objectively, however.
When the act is "finished" orally, yes, it represents sodomy. Such an act is obviously opposed to the natural order.
So you are in favor of laws prohibition oral sex between man and wife. Good luck.
Such a law may be impossible to pass. That wouldn't make such a law wrong.
So God requires that we don't punish evil acts?
Bizzare leap. Strawman. Define evil.
You told me that God will pass his judgement at the end. My question to you is, will God look favorably upon me for being indifferent to the criminalization of homosexual acts?
Circular illogic. Define it. This case is a perfect example. The good of society is either served or not depending on which side of this argument you are on.
There are already laws about that. These sodomy laws are not confined to public places. No one one this thread has argued for public sex.
LOL -- if it weren't for this goofball law, nobody would have ever heard of John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Thank you for ending the argument with an irrefutable proof that all such laws should be abolished.
People have the right to do anything which does not violate others rights.
The case in point was a private liason. It seems to have been orchestrated so as to be observed by police so homosexuals could make it a test case.
The law would be wrong regardless of it's "passability".
So God requires that we don't punish evil acts?
I never said that, strawman. Turn it around, Does he require us to punish them? Which ones?
He will deal with evil, we must deal with interactions among men in this realm.
You told me that God will pass his judgement at the end. My question to you is, will God look favorably upon me for being indifferent to the criminalization of homosexual acts?
Indifferent? The better question is, will you be looked upon favorably for using violence to enforce what you perceive to be his will?
I can't seem to find where Christ instructed us to enforce his will by violence or threat thereof. In fact, in one instance, he told us to bug off and he would handle it.