"We are all sodomites now: a case for sexual freedom" -- by Andrew Sullivan

New Republic via andrewsullivan.com ^ | March, '03 | Andrew Sullivan

[churchillbuff]

In a sense he's right, if "sodomite" means not homosexual strictly, but a culture that has surrendered to sexual decadance. A booming business in abortion and slaughtered babies by the tub-full are evidence. Not something to celebrate.

[Jim Noble]

Yes, it is sort of a point to say, "If heterosexuals are free to have 'gay sex' (multiple partners, sodomy, divorce at will, adultery) without legal or social sanction-why deny it to homosexuals except as a manifestation of prejudice".

It's actually a pretty good argument-except Sullivan overdoes it to say that the madness of the past thirty years is the fixed standard from humanity cannot and will not (you should pardon the expression) deviate.

It's far more likely that the sexual chaos of the present will lead to either the destruction of the society or to a return to Pleasantville-in either case, an undesirable outcome for Sullivan's POV.

[Rodney King]

Whatever. Andrew Sullivan is generally a bright guy, but I will never, ever, accept that I am the one who has a problem because I don't like the smell of hairy butts.

[Russell Scott]

Long, convoluted, twisted logic bump.

[Bluewave]

Your response is undobutly conservative and correct. Unfortunately, your meaning will be lost in the chorus of of "ain't it awful, what them queers do to each other."

Freedom is of great importance and it should be preserved, even if it gives certain adults, certain "rights"

[mrsmith]

"The most obvious question surrounding Lawrence vs Texas relates to a matter more fundamental than constitutional law. And it's a simple one: what is actually wrong with sodomy? Why is it immoral? And why is it therefore still illegal in thirteen states in the U.S. and in many countries around the world? "

Funny, for me the obvious question is whether a court can rewrite the constitution.
If they can I have no freedom, no rights.

[EternalVigilance]

A goodly percentage of the pro-sodomites on FR already took their shot on this thread today:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901988/posts

[Jorge]

Most modern scholars believe the original sin of Sodom was a refusal to be accommodating to travelers. Others believe it might have been the sin of rape. Ezekiel, on the other hand, explains that Sodom and "her daughters had pride, over-abundance of bread, abundance, and leisure, but they did not extend their hand to the poor. They were raised up and committed abominations before me." Even in the New Testament, Sodom is condemned in terms of its connection with "uncleanness," and "adultery." When Leviticus condemns men who lie with men, no reference is made to Sodom itself.

What nonsense.

The homosexual wickedness of Sodom is clearly illustrated in the Bible;

Genesis 19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

Genesis 19:5
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Genesis 19:6
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

Genesis 19:7
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

The "wickedness" of what the men of Sodom were attempting was homosexual in nature. What they were proposing was homosexual rape. For such an event to include virtually "all the men of the city, both young and old"..homosexuality must have been commonly practiced.

There is evidence in other early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites "sexually promiscuous"(Test. of Benjamin 9:1)and refers to "Sodom which departed from the order of nature" (Test. of Nephtali 3:4). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex realtions as the characteristic veiw of Sodom.

Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites "they were haughty and committed abomination before me" and the sexual nature of these "abominations" is suggested in 2Peter 2:6-7; "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction...and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked"..

In Jude 7 we similarly read "Like wise Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing punishment"[NRSV].

Note....Jude 1:7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. .... indicate that homosexuality is a sub- category of fornication.
That this is the type of fornication being described here.
Certainly the Sodomites were guilty of other sins, besides homosexuality..but with the number of the references being to Sodoms sexual sins,and the indication homosexuality was widely practiced..it is likely this is one of the many reasons judgement fell on them.

[Paloma_55]

You can see the benefits of this point as a strategy. Reducing love, friendship, passion and companionship - the critical elements of most gay relationships - to a simple physical act is extremely reductive. We'd never talk about heterosexual marriage primarily in terms of vaginal intercourse, or merely sexual needs. It slights the depth and variety of the heterosexual relationship. Nevertheless, it remains a simple fact that a large amount of the opposition to gay equality (especially among heterosexual men) comes from a visceral association of gay relationships with sodomy. And indeed, from the beginnings of our cultural discomfort with homosexuality, almost the entire legacy of stigmatization has been focused on one thing only: the illicit, vile, unmentionable "crime against nature" which the law has long designated as the definition of homosexuality itself. In some ways, then, a new focus on sodomy is welcome. It offers us an opportunity to come to grips not only with the real nature of homosexuality, but also with the real nature of those who wish to retain and even advance its stigmatization. And it provides an occasion not simply to negatively defend the right to private, consensual sodomy, but to positively defend its morality as well.
A strategy eh? We'd never talk about heterosexual marriage primarily in terms of vaginal intercourse, or merely sexual needs.... because there is MUCH more to a decent heterosexual marriage than vaginal intercourse. A decent marriage provides a mechanism for raising kids, establishing a traditional family that will go on and on through time and if healthy, provide generations of good citizens.
On the other hand, homosexual relationships are predominantly non-monogmamous... because homosexuals are extremely promiscuous... and therefore disease is their primary social contribution.
I think the real strategy is to bluntly attack the problem, then spend about 50 paragraphs dancing around the obvious, trying to divert attention from the fact that morality is defined by society, that American Society is based on Judeo-Christian values, and that our society has deemed homosexual acts, and many heterosexual acts to be deviant... and that the true agenda of the homosexuals is to overturn our morality to make it fit their perverted needs.

[bourbon]

Several points:

1) theologian John Finnis ...whatever.
Finnis is a legal philosopher by trade, not a theologian regardless of how Sullivan chooses to classify him.

2) Andrew Sullivan knows about as much about natural law philosophy (traditional or contemporary) as I do about the nuances of the Tagalog language.

3) Sullivan is right that the logical key to the proscription of sodomy is the fact that it is unnatural. What we are currently seeing is the late stages of an intellectual/social movement which has completely redefined "nature" by stripping the concept of its essentially teleological meaning. As a consequence, what used to be considered the ultimate crime against nature is now, according to Sullivan, simply a natural fact that we all just need to deal with.

[MoodyBlu]

Andrew sure took a long time and a lot of words to say he likes being a "pee-pee kissing, pole smoker".

Andrew, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

[MHGinTN]

http://www.cfpeople.org/military/notthisagain1.jpg

Andrew wants this case to 'legitimize' homosexual behavior and thus homosexuals, so they can obtain all the other goals as a 'legitimate' minority. Of course, it is all about chosen behavior that is banned, and therefore it is the behavior that is to be adjudicated over, not the status of homos. But you have to realize, these sick people make it their life's goal to find legitimacy for their degeneracy.

[MHGinTN]

[Jorge]

It's worth stressing here, then, that from the very beginning, sodomy and homosexuality were two categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy - then and now - is simply non-procreative sex, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Again, I believe he is denying the Biblical evidence connecting the term sodomy to homosexuality.

We saw the example of the men of Sodom at Lott's door, demanding the "men" inside for homosexual purposes.

Then we see in Jude 1:7 (KJV) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after *strange flesh,* are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Going after "strange flesh" is presented as "pursued unnatural lust" in the NRSV.
And "unnatural" in reference to sexual behavior is used in Romans to describe homosexuality.

It indicates sexual lust for something "other than" the normal or natural object.

When we add to this the reference of Sodom's homosexuality, called "wicked" by Lot immediately before God destroys Sodom ....Well the idea that there is not real connection between the term sodomy and homosexuality is simply another example of gay theology trying to redefine the scriptures to suit their agenda.

[Paul C. Jesup]

These religious hypocrites really amaze me, they have not problem with people breaking most of the Ten Commandments, but they draw the line at homosexuality (which is NOT against the Ten Commandments). These hypocrites need to get their priorities straightened out.

[MHGinTN]

Such noble words. Are you aware that the homos of the legal action refused to stop their buggery when the police pounded on the apartment door, refused to stop their buggery when the police made their way down the hall to the 'chamber'? Are you aware that these same homos were 'reported' by their fellow homo who lived next door, and that these same homos (the one next door and one of the ones actrively buggering when the cops broke in) tried previously to get a court case going regarding homo marriage laws in Texas and another state?

These homos set up the case for getting it into the courts. What I still have been unable to discover is, which one of the SC judges brought this crap forawrd on their activist agenda in order to get three more judges to sign on and the High Court take the case under review! I'll bet it was Ruth'let's lower the age of consent to 12'Ginsberg!

[man of Yosemite]

Exactly right, they wanted to rape the angels of God, and the debauchery of that thought ought not to be wasted today.
The meaning of the scripture is quite clear, and if people don't like what it says, then they'll try to make it say something else or ignore it completely. Never lose sight of the fact that Sodom is still dust. You can have all the freedom you want, but God will judge, and His judgement shall stand.

[POGIFFMOO]

Apparently Andrew Sullivan would not be satisfied unless the bible was more graphic and explicit in it's descriptions so he could understand it better. Bet there's a lot of other sections he has that same problem with.

[man of Yosemite]

There are a lot more than ten commandments, but what all the commandments do is show us the absolute holiness of God contrasted to our own sinfullness. We are saved by God's mercy, not by any righteousness of our own. We depart from sin because we know it offends God, who loved us so much, that he gave His own Son an offering for our sins. It is not a religion, but a relationship born out of the compassion and mercy of God himself.