NOW you want to define sodomy?
Well, I am all for any male/male sex acts to be outlawed. That way they will keep it in the closet where it belongs. Male female - anal sodomy should for sure be illegal. It is disgusting and bad for the mental and physical health. But here is the main point - if people do such acts in the PRIVACY - got it? - of their own houses without making it a public affair, not a damn soul will know or care.
But when such things are made public - either explicitly as in parades, in the bushes, beaches etc - or as a “cause” - then we wind up with the bar of what is socially acceptable lowered so far in the dirt that little children are exposed to “gay” propaganda - because it is “legal”. And since you opined that kindergartners should be exposed to “gay” propaganda, you know exactly what I am talking about.
But you are in favor of the “gay” agenda, and I (and the owner of FR) are not. That is the difference.
Um, I wrote the exact opposite. Read my posts on the subject again before knee-jerking.
But you are in favor of the “gay” agenda
Um, no, I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? Are you sure you meant to respond to me here?
But here is the main point - if people do such acts in the PRIVACY - got it? - of their own houses without making it a public affair, not a damn soul will know or care.
I still don't get why you want to criminalize private conduct when you can get the same results (that is, getting rid of public lewdness- which, as I noted upthread, people still get arrested for even in very liberal areas like Arlington, Virginia) by leaving private conduct alone while making such conduct illegal in public. Why not rely on an approach that gives government less power?
I get your point about not wanting to see gay rights marches, but such marches were common before sodomy was made legal. Banning sodomy again would make no difference when it came to such marches. They are protected by the 1st Amendment, after all.