Skip to comments.
"We are all sodomites now: a case for sexual freedom" -- by Andrew Sullivan
New Republic via andrewsullivan.com ^
| March, '03
| Andrew Sullivan
Posted on 04/28/2003 7:10:48 PM PDT by churchillbuff
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-205 next last
To: Cultural Jihad
Homosexual sodomy is a form of murder, since it destroys both the soul and the bodyWhat about heterosexual sodomy?
121
posted on
04/29/2003 11:11:47 AM PDT
by
sakic
To: Russell Scott
Homosexuals, like the Dixie Chicks, need to keep quietShould heterosexuals keep quiet?
122
posted on
04/29/2003 11:13:08 AM PDT
by
sakic
To: sakic
There are bigger problems to deal with, as I stated earlier in this thread.
To: Paul C. Jesup
Far bigger.
124
posted on
04/29/2003 11:14:48 AM PDT
by
sakic
To: sakic
Far bigger
Demonization of innocent people by the press, the government stealing the money from the hard working people of this country, the murdering of unborn babies... You get the idea.
To: sakic
Anything is morally-licit within a heterosexual marriage provided it is consensual and in no way degrading to either partner.
To: Jerez2
I have never heard of 'sodomy' or 'the crime against nature' as referring to masturbation or any other simply non-procreational sex acts. It refers specifically to anal sex. According to most dictionaries, it refers to bestiality, anal sex, OR oral sex (whether homosexual or heterosexual). See Merriam-Webster online (m-w.com) for an example.
To: Jerez2
It refers specifically to anal sex. maybe to you but not under the law in several states.
in my home state of utah, "sodomy" is defined as oral or anal and is illegal regardless of the marital status or sexual orientation of the participants.
virginia's law also prohibits oral, and was used recently to try to remove a lesbian judge from office.
To: Paul C. Jesup
Sodom and Gomorrah was during Abraham and his nephew Lot's time.
Benjaimin was a great grandson of Abraham.
To: Paul C. Jesup
??? Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not teach that the rest of the world has to follow it (other than the 7 Noachide Laws).
To: sakic
It's a good thing that you are on the internet, or you would get your face bashed in.
131
posted on
04/29/2003 12:48:01 PM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: Just mythoughts
You missed my point.
To: AriOxman
??? Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not teach that the rest of the world has to follow it (other than the 7 Noachide Laws).
That is so hypocritical of you.
To: Paul C. Jesup
Not if you view the 7 Noachide Laws as not being part of Judaism per se - considering the Islam & Christianity in all of their forms recognize it as such.
To: AriOxman
I went to Church every Sunday and Wednesday when I was younger, and I never heard of 'Noachide Laws' until today.
To: Paul C. Jesup
Guess so.
To: sakic
America for one.
137
posted on
04/29/2003 1:43:40 PM PDT
by
FF578
(Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and His justice cannot sleep forever)
To: POGIFFMOO
The newer translations of the Bible are more graphic in their language regarding what the Sodomites wanted to do to the angels!
To: msimon
John chapter 1 equates Jesus as God (...and the Word was made Flesh). The emperor at the time had nothing to do with that Idea at all,(though he may have agreed with it out of political expediancy). The old Testament called the coming saviour "Emmanuel..or God with us". Sorry, but old and new testaments equate the Son as being God in flesh, who before Abraham was "I Am"!. Christ called himself, I AM, which led to attempts to stone him.
To: churchillbuff
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? Nope. Rick Santorum asked the real question: if it is not within a state's purview to legislate against sodomy, is it within the state's purview to legislate on any sexual practice?
Sullivan's answer would have to be "no," because if he answers "yes" to any particular practive, then his position with respect to sodomy collapses. If sexual "privacy" is protected, there can be no exception.
This takes us to uncomfortable places. Several years ago, for instance, some Dallas policemen were fired because they had practiced bestiality. Would this case allow them to sue?
Similarly, laws against polygamy, incest (between consenting, related, adults), and so on are out the window.
The gay agenda is focused on achieving a particular end. But, in typical narcissistic fashion, they fail to look beyond their own bottom line to the wider implications of their quest.
Sullivan spent a lot of words -- but he missed the real point.
140
posted on
04/29/2003 2:38:24 PM PDT
by
r9etb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-205 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson