Posted on 11/10/2008 1:31:05 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Something can be legal among consenting adults, but illegal when performed on someone who has not, or legally cannot, give consent. Making sodomy generally legal under the law in no way makes forced sodomy legal or in any way acceptable.
Plus, if it’s illegal, it tends to keep them more in the closet, which is where they belong, instead of in the parks, on the streets, on the beaches, in the public rest rooms, etc.
All of those things you mentioned are illegal, regardless of whether sodomy itself is legal or not. Again, some things can be perfectly legal between consenting adults in private, but illegal in public.
And sodomy laws made a lot of heterosexual conduct illegal, too. These laws tended to apply to all types of sodomy, regardless of the parties involved.
The title of the article. And the guy’s question about it only being a prohibition against male-male sodomy.
Oh ok because you replied to me so I assumed you were replying to me. My mistake.
LOL.
It is still a sin, but should not be unlawful. The government has no constitutional right to invade the privacy of consenting adults so long as no one’s rights are violated.
If the Republican Party and conservatives do not stand up for traditional Judeo-Christian values, then they stand for nothing. Legalizing perversion is the first step to legalizing gay marriage, to be followed by supporting legalizing abortion and infanticide. There will be no end to the immorality in which our Nation can fall if the Republicans do not take a Strong Moral Stand.
There is a big difference between believing that sodomy is a sin, and criminalizing private sexual behavior. Few members of the GOP have any interest in arresting consenting adults for private sexual acts.
Legalizing perversion is the first step to legalizing gay marriage, to be followed by supporting legalizing abortion and infanticide.
These things are different from sodomy- they involve the state giving benefits (in the case of gay marriage) or allowing a non-consenting party to be harmed (abortion, infanticide). Legalizing consensual sodomy does neither of these things.
I go with tradition - sodomy between men was a capital offense in this country - Jefferson being the enlightened gentleman that he was, reduced the penalty in VA to, IIRC, castration and banishment from the colony or state.
I am not advocating castration or banishment, nor yet death!
Every scripture in the world considers sodomy - meaning anal “sex” - and any sex acts between members of the same sex - to be sinful, criminal acts.
There is no need or cause to change this to suit modern degraded standards. Lower the bar and lo and behold - it gets lowered some more. And some more. And some more - until you’re digging a deep hole in the ground, which is where we are today.
And I support limiting the government's powers to tell people what to do behind closed doors, if they're not harming anyone. I simply don't see where the government gets the power to do so.
Every scripture in the world considers sodomy - meaning anal “sex” - and any sex acts between members of the same sex - to be sinful, criminal acts.
But we don't criminalize sins, not generally. Our laws are generally aimed at protecting the person or property of another from being victimized.
And, the legal defintion of sodomy in this country has never been limited to male-male anal sex. The Texas law that was struck down in Bowers, for example, criminalized all oral and anal sex, regardless of the parties involved.
What's your opposition to banning government interference with private, consensual sexual activities between adults?
Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.
The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.
Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity was seen as unnatural or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.
Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. In addition, state courts in 10 states applied state constitutional provisions to invalidate sodomy laws. As of early 2003, eight states had laws that barred heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. Three other states barred sodomy between homosexuals.
In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Georgia sodomy statute. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged with sodomy for engaging in oral sex with a consenting male adult in his home. A police officer was let into Hardwick's home to serve a warrant and saw the sexual act. Although the state prosecutor declined to prosecute the case, Hardwick brought suit in federal court asking that the statute be declared unconstitutional.
On a 5–4 vote, the Court upheld the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron r. white rejected the argument that previous decisions such as the Court's rulings on Abortion and contraception had created a right of privacy that extended to homosexual sodomy. Instead, the Court drew a sharp distinction between the previous cases, which involved "family, marriage, or procreation," and homosexual activity.
The Court also rejected the argument that there is a fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity. Prohibitions against sodomy were in the laws of most states since the nation's founding. To the argument that homosexual activity should be protected when it occurs in the privacy of a home, White stated that "otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home." Because the claim in the case involved only homosexual sodomy, the Court expressed no opinion about the constitutionality of the statute as applied to acts of heterosexual sodomy.
The Bowers decision was severely criticized. Justice Lewis Powell, who voted with the majority, later stated that he had made a mistake in voting to affirm the law. In July 2003 the Supreme Court reversed itself on the issue of sodomy. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, in a 6–3 decision, the Court invalidated a Texas anti-homosexual sodomy law by invoking the constitutional rights to privacy.
True, God granted no rights to sodomy. At the same time, God didn’t grant rights to anyone to peek into another person’s bedroom. What YOU are saying is that the government has the right to invade your privacy. I don’t see that in the natural law at all.
A poor choice of words on my part. The SCOTUS affirmed a right of privacy by holding that the constitutional limitations on government prohibiting it from passing laws with respect to personal, private conduct.
There have been far too many so-called conservative political and religious leaders who have garnered attention by railing against sexual sins, only to expose themselves as perpetrators of the same behavior. Such hypocrisy has eroded conservative credibility on social issues, to the delight of liberals everywhere. Our constitution guarantees that religious views are personal and no one else’s business, and none of us are require to be subject to anyone else’s. Conservatives, liberals, and everyone else should stay out of the bedroom.
Amen
Wait til the perverts want to lower the age of consent to eight years old. Oh yeah...they already do and that will be the next civil right.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Fair enough. But national security may have something to say about it. Considering that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed. So much for natural law. It could cost you your life. And the death of a nation.
If it can be demonstrated that an otherwise private act poses a real threat then it no longer maintains the qualifier of not intruding onto the rights of others. If you can't prove this you have no more standing than that of an uptight panty sniffer.
Except that it IS no longer "behind closed doors". The privacy of the bedroom argument is long gone: to even suggest that it should remain private will draw accusations of "shoving them back in the closet".
We have Gay Pride parades, gay characters on just about Every Television Program on Satellite, Gay Curricula in our Government Schools, So-called civil unions and gay marriages,etc., ad nauseum.
To state that homosexuality may be immoral is to brand yourself a bigot and I gaur-an-TEE that it will in fact become a hate crime to even think that way.
Sorry to rain on your parade but refer to Romans 1 where it states women were leaving the natural use of the body doing that which was unseemly. It may not be sodomy but it still is an abomination before God. Why is it that xxx videos with two men are in a separate catagory from films with heterosexual couples and then throw in a couple of scenes with two women performing the act God designated for a husband and his wife. Double standard? It sure seems so to me. I have friends who ask me about these things and though I don’t watch them these movies sure paint a different picture than what we teach. We have a great responsibility to show Christ but Hellywood sure makes it difficult to show a Godly lifestyle.
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.