Replies

Rather than respond piecemeal, I'll answer your several posts in one...

Not in the case of Texas and other States where engaging in the act of sodomy is criminalized for some, and permitted for others, I don't recall either the Bible, or Thomas Jefferson saying that sodomy was OK with someone of the opposite sex, as a matter of fact, in the quote you yourself provided, Jefferson explicitly denounces these actions "with man or woman".

The Bible doesn't actually go into detail about sex acts between either the opposite, or the same sex. The Bible proscribes, in general terms, all sorts of sexual activity. Therefore, we don't have an unalienable right to anything proscribed.
You are correct about Jefferson, but all that means is that the States also retain the power to outlaw certain behavior between members of the opposite sex. We accept this in principle when we accept the power of the States to outlaw, for example, prostitution, polygamy, and adult incest.
Laws need to apply equally, to all citizens if we are to avoid the sorts of challenges being routinely raised by gay activists.

Laws against homosexual acts do apply equally to everyone.
Like murder or rape, homosexual identity is defined by behavior, not by anything intrinsic in an individual's creation. To say that laws against homosexual acts apply unfairly to homosexuals is as pointless as saying that laws against rape and murder apply unfairly to rapists and murderers.
If you want to make sodomy illegal, then make it illegal for everyone and quit giving the gay lobby something to wave around and shout out "discrimination".

I haven't given the homosexuals any legitimate complaint. They are not created, their behavior is an acquired obsession.
By the way, nice try at diverting from the true point of the Declaration, I am not buying into it. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"...the pursuit of happiness. While engaging in homosexual behavior may not be your idea of pursuing happiness, it is to a homosexual. That you don't believe that is really of very little consequence to the law.

Again, your argument is with Jefferson. His opinions on what were rights and what could be considered crimes are germane to the "true point of the Declaration," pro-homosexual sophistry notwithstanding.
I have no problem with Jefferson, but you brought him up, so I wondered how you fared in his light.

I realize that bringing up Jefferson in a discussion of unalienable rights might appear jarring to some, but they shouldn't allow themselves to be so easily distracted.

I guess by your answer that you are in fact a sodomite…

It appears that more than one Freeper believes he has "the gift."
Double talk!
My favorite.

This is not news.

Jefferson did not try to raise his opinion on what to do about sodomites to the level of law.

You'd better re-read the link, Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments, because that's exactly what the author of the Declaration of Independence was proposing.
Thomas Jefferson clearly didn't believe that we are endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to sodomy, and you appear to believe otherwise.
Here's something else you missed…
The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes, which you say you have heard insisted on by some, I assure you was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them, strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murther and perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c. punish by castration.
Thomas Jefferson - 1776

Yes, you have a problem with Jefferson.

"Laws against homosexual acts do apply equally to everyone."

Bunk.

Laws against homosexual acts do not apply to me, they apply to people who would be inclined to engage in homosexual acts. If they applied to everyone, you wouldn't need to use "homosexual" as a qualifier.

In enacting the law, and by clearly stating that sodomy will only be considered a crime when engaged in by people of the same sex, homosexuals, the law itself creates a sub-segment of society, and uses the gender of the individuals involved in the act to differentiate between criminal activity and permitted activity.

In the eyes of the law, when it comes to crimes, we are all simply citizens. Not male citizens vs. female citizens.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could prove me wrong by pointing out any and all other laws where the act, actions, or behavior which are deemed to be anti-social or destructive, are legal for some, and not legal for others.

Your error on this statement is the fact that you have not read the Texas Statutes; they clearly indicate that contact between one person's anal or oral cavity, and another person's genitalia is considered to be "deviant sexual intercourse", then the make it illegal for homosexuals to engage in it, and perfectly fine for the rest of the citizenry to engage in "deviant sexual intercourse".