Posted on 11/10/2008 1:31:05 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Actually, I'm not saying that, and I agree with your last point. The gov't has no right to bust into people's bedrooms. The way this used to work is if someone committed the crime publicly (Provincetown, are you listening?), they were punished, but the police didn't generally go looking for it.
I'm not saying that the government *must* ban sodomy. What I am saying is that we cannot *forbid* the government from banning it, especially not on the basis of "Constitutional rights" that do not exist.
Personally I would be in favor of prosecuting any public lewdness and leaving it at that.
Can you guys please get your syntax and spelling in order?
***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.***
The ancient Israelites had a practical experience of male homosexuality - it was anti survival. The practitioners had no families to protect and were more likely to indulge in their own whims which could run to the self destructive (much as the current batch of bug chasers indulge in) rather than put their lives on the line to protect their own biological families.
The Greeks put their homosexuals into the shock troops because they were less likely to hold onto life and were more risky in their behaviours.
Thus came the Biblical proscriptions. Lesbians are far less anti-survival than male homosexuals, albeit more so than heterosexual women. Deuteronomy was pro-life, at least as far as the culture and technology existed in that time. Lesbians could be tolerated since they would contribute to the survival of the culture; male homosexuals were more risky and often anti survival.
We don’t criminalize sins?
Ha ha. You’re funny. It is a sin to murder, to assault, to rob, steal, burglurize, kidnap, commit arson, rape, molest children, slander, lie in court, and the like.
What you liberaltarians mean is you want “regular” sins to be illegal but sexual sins should be allowed. Control of the sexual impulse is what distinquishes humans from animals. All monotheist cultures (and I’m including Buddhist even though it isn’t monotheist since it’s really based on Hindu or Vedic tradition and scripture, and Hinduism since its foundation is monotheist) have soundly condemned sodomy - homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex and adultery. This isn’t because they were all prudes, but because God has rules and He has revealed them throughout history. These rules are natural laws, and when they are broken, broken families and broken social order is the direct and inescapable result.
It’s amazing the support of sodomy on this thread, totally ignoring the reality of what legalizing sodomy has accomplished in the last few years. If people who want to practice sodomy KEPT THEIR NASTY ACTIVITIES IN THEIR FREAKING BEDROOMS (or bathrooms, as the case may be), not a single solitary soul would know or care.
The entire “keeping the government out of the bedroom” is a farce - it’s a fraud. People Promoting the Practice of Sodomy want it in the streets, in the parks, in the PUBLIC bathrooms, at the beaches, on TV, in theaters, and worst of all, in the schools and in the Boy Scouts.
Keep in the bedrooms and out of everyone else’s life.
Liberaltarians are worse than liberals because at least liberals admit what they want, you liberaltarians pretend that you’re about reduction of government. Real reduction of government means keep the government out of forcing acceptance, “tolerance” and promotion of sodomy on the REST OF US.
“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.”
I believe the right to privacy rationale only had five votes. O’Connor voted against that specific law on equal protection grounds. She would’ve upheld laws that banned sodomy for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. (Consistent with her vote in Bowers v. Hardwick)
Having said that, I think this is one sin that I will leave up to God to do the punishing. They will meet their maker and have to explain their sins and ask forgiveness if they want eternal peace in Heaven, just like we all do.
When it comes to adultery, that is the sin that is actually hurting another person (the spouse), and maybe conservatives would be better served tackling that one, and leaving the consenting adults alone to face their sins on their own.
In other words, the government should stay out of bedrooms unless the participants are harming someone!
But they stopped saying that about 40 years ago. Now it's all a drive for public affirmation, public funding to pay for manipulating public opinion (e.g through the public schools), and public systems of reward and incentives for same-sex couples (e.g. a parody of marriage), coupled with public penalties for those who resist (e.g. the too-many-to-list coercions and lawsuits against those who "discriminate".)
What a relief it would be, if we could say, "Quite. Right. Your own private matter. Now leave the rest of us alone."
As I understand it, a husband and wife can do as they like, as long as it's not dangerous, degrading, or coerced.
AND as long as it's not done as a way of avoiding honest sex altogether --- I mean the blessed act that results in sperm happily minnowing up the sweet lady's waterway. Because if you intend to avoid the real marriage act altogether, then that's contraception, which is, in practice, the basic perversion.
In other words, intentionally sterile sex acts (acts involving ejaculation) go against God's obvious design of the generative organs and are morally equivalent to gay sex acts.
But other than that, hey married lovers, make each other happy, play nice and play as you will.
And what do those sins have in common? They involve harm to the person or property of another. But we don't criminalize many other sins, including the biggest of the 10 Commandments (thou shall have no other gods...) because those sins involve conduct that harms no one other than the sinner. Sodomy falls into that secondary category- it is certainly a sin under the Judeo-Christian Bible, but it does not harm anyone other than, potentially, the people involved.
What you liberaltarians mean is you want “regular” sins to be illegal but sexual sins should be allowed.
My position is clear- I do not think the government has the power to criminalize any conduct that does not harm the person or property of another. The regular sin versus sexual sin distinction is something you have created.
It’s amazing the support of sodomy on this thread, totally ignoring the reality of what legalizing sodomy has accomplished in the last few years.
What has the legalization of sodomy caused in the last few years? People were committing as much sodomy before the SCOTUS decisions as they are now. These laws were relics even in the States where they were still on the books. SCOTUS just recognized the reality of the situation in this country- though many people may consider sodomy to be a sin, few people consider it an appropriate area for the government to regulate.
The entire “keeping the government out of the bedroom” is a farce - it’s a fraud. People Promoting the Practice of Sodomy want it in the streets, in the parks, in the PUBLIC bathrooms, at the beaches, on TV, in theaters, and worst of all, in the schools and in the Boy Scouts.
AFAIK, public lewdness is still a crime everywhere in this country. Except for a few whacked out places like San Francisco or Fire Island, police will arrest and charge anyone caught engaging in this type of behavior in public, which is as it should be.
Keep in the bedrooms and out of everyone else’s life.
I'm not sure where we disagree, then. I am a strong supporter of law and order and fully back the enforcement of laws dealing with public lewdness. But, I do not believe the government has the legitimate power to prosecute people for private, consensual sexual conduct.
I’ve got to think the Sin of Onan is the most common.
The purpose of laws against sodomy are to keep it in the bedroom (or the outhouse, as the case may be.) If people practicing sodomy keep it private, no one will know or care.
But since it is now legal, it is in the streets, in the parks, in the bushes, at the beaches, on TV and movies, and being taught to kids in school.
Why?
Because it’s legal.
“AFAIK, public lewdness is still a crime everywhere in this country. Except for a few whacked out places like San Francisco or Fire Island, police will arrest and charge anyone caught engaging in this type of behavior in public, which is as it should be.”
Sheesh - do you live in the 50s, or what? Obviously not on the west coast or in any large city with a large homosexual population. Lewdness in the streets? It’s SOP.
I’ve been driven out of beaches and parks because of people practicing sodomy. There are public restrooms closed down on I-5 because of people practicing sodomy. There is a whole rest room culture of people practicing sodomy. You can’t be serious that people are arrested for “public lewdness” any more. Maybe if they run around small town USA naked but not in many places.
You don't need to ban sodomy to ban public lewdness. Following your logic, we should also make non-sodomous (not sure that's a word) sex illegal in order to combat public lewdness. The government should pass laws as narrowly-tailored as possible in order to fight certain types of crimes.
But since it is now legal, it is in the streets, in the parks, in the bushes, at the beaches, on TV and movies, and being taught to kids in school.
Growing up in the 80's and 90's, I ran into people having sex in parks and on beaches (including people engaged in what would legally qualify as sodomy). Frankly, people who are the type to commit publicly lewd acts couldn't care less whether the acts commited are legal in private or not.
Certainly, some jurisdictions have been cowed by gay groups to the point that they are not willing to enforce public lewdity laws. But that is a separate issue. People should reject the argument that its okay to do something in public just because it is legal in private. We arrest people for public intoxication and we should do the same for public lewdness.
Sigh.
I don’t understand why you don’t get it. Seems as though it’s all theoretical with you.
In OR it’s perfectly legal to drink and be drunk in public as long as you are not pissing directly on someone or breaking things. Public lewdness is the “gay” agenda’s culture of gayness and is part and parcel of their agenda. If you haven’t seen it yet where you live or visit or read about it, you are living in a pretty pink fantasy of yesteryear.
I live in DC, and I've lived in New York and LA. I mean, maybe I'm missing it, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually seen lewdness in public. Even in the "gay" parts of town, I've never seen anything more risque than a couple of homosexuals kissing and holding hands.
I’ve been driven out of beaches and parks because of people practicing sodomy.
Seriously? Where was this? I'm genuinely curious.
You can’t be serious that people are arrested for “public lewdness” any more. Maybe if they run around small town USA naked but not in many places.
I looked into it- there were 101 arrests for indecent exposure in Arlington, Virginia since 2002. That's in a population of a little over 200,000. Arlington is close-in suburb of DC and may well be the most liberal place in Virginia.
I’m not going to waste my time on someone professing to be conservative and yet subtly promoting the “gay” agenda by pretending it isn’t what it absolutely is and even claims to be.
I’ve been reading up and posting on the “gay” agenda for quite a few years and I know what I am talking about, you do not. Or you do, and are pretending you don’t. If you really don’t know, do a keyword search on “homosexual agenda” on FR and do hours of reading and educate yourself.
If you are pretending, then I have no desire to waste my time.
agreed, and conversely, when godless NEA liberals begin telling parents they have no say in their children's education and begin having "Gay days" for kindergartners, conservatives need to take a stand.
Bingo, there’s nothing normal about it and this is a slippery slope.
Who’s to say a man in love with his oak tree doesn’t have rights to marry another living thing? And get you know, tax rights and lower health care costs, etc. etc. etc.
After all he has to support his spouse by bringing home fertilizer, bring the tree with him to the next house...water...hell even insurance and funeral costs!
People, liberal madness is open-ended!
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.