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

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

[hford02]

I'm probably too predisposed to homophobia (due to a near rape incident in childhood) to be very tolerant of the gay lifestyle... and I do believe that most boys are sought after and "turned" in this way.

I do however think bickering about old testament curses proves nothing today. Can't this type of activity be made illegal by the simple rule of community standards of decency... if this law is struck down then can't we imagine a "pride" day for nudist chicken fornicators... Maybe we should just give the bastar_s our boys and save the trouble.

[capitan_refugio]

I knew some malt whiskeys are "finished" in old sherry ("jerez" in Spanish) casks, after aging in their own oaken cask for several years. I never realized that it could be done the other way around. You learn something new everyday - especially on FR.

[Krafty123]

Which "lesser" sins? No orthodox jewish person would dispute that those 3 are the worst.

[Geritol]

If the single most important and inviolate standard is that consenting adults (or possibly even consenting minors of roughly equal ages, but let us avoid the minor's issues for now) have innate rights of privacy (and intimate association?) that make it unconstitutional to outlaw or even condemn any consensual and freely joined act between them, then we would have to strike down ANY statute that would discourage ANY adult from freely participating in ANY intimate acts with ANY other adult.

We would then have to strike down all statutes against sodomy, homosexuality, incest between adult siblings of same or opposite genders, incest between parents and adult children of any gender, adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, bigamy and other group "marital" relationships (whether the abundance is females, males or both), prostitution both male and female, sadomasochism (even leading to death?), and other activities that I will not describe in detail. This standard could NOT just apply to the same-gender "intimate" relationships that this article tries so hard to support. If privacy and adult consent are the highest law then all of these acts and more would have to be legalized.

If we were instead to use reasonable standards to make statutes for the common and individual protection to restrict activities known to lead to disease, death, destruction of communities, families and individuals, and/or higher incidences of birth defects and many other harms, we would continue to outlaw and/or discourage all of these activities and more. In fact there are a number of activities that are now allowed and even encouraged and supported (in this country at least) with tax monies that would also become discouraged or punishable under these standards. Under these standards we would not have tax monies buying books and paying for curriculum and even dedicating school rooms to support these activities which most of us understand to be hazardous and undesireable.

[FoShizzol]

In Catholic teaching, it's just as bad to limit sex to a merely procreative act as it is to limit it to a merely pleasurable act. That's why the Church condemns in vitro fertilization, "test-tube babies," and the like. Sullivan would have you believe that Catholics only approve of sex if every sexual act produces a baby, but that's simply an untrue representation of Catholic teaching. Sex is good when it combines the unitive and procreative elements within a heterosexual marriage.

Sex cannot be reduced to simply baby-making or simply pleasure and union.

(For heaven's sake, if anyone knows this, it's Catholics; look at all those kids these people have!)

[Travis McGee]

For a long time, the immorality of sodomy was regarded as so self-evident it didn't bear examination.

Exactly correct Andrew. And for some damn good reasons.

[weegee]

In September 1998, two men by the names of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were having sex in their home in Houston, Texas. Without warning, police broke into Lawrence's home and found the two engaged in what Texas law calls sodomy. The police had been summoned by a neighbor who had complained about a man allegedly "going crazy" in Lawrence's house. Lawrence and Garner were arrested, held for 24 hours and subsequently fined $200 after pleading no contest to the charge of sexual deviation. The neighbor was subsequently convicted of filing a false police report. Lawrence and Garner then challenged the constitutionality of their conviction in the Texas Court of Appeals and the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, claiming it violated their right to privacy and to equal protection of the laws.

He omits the detail that the third man was a homosexual lover of one of the two men. He also neglects to mention that the 2 men left their front door unlocked while they had sex. He also neglected to mention that the 2 men continued to have anal sex when the police entered the bedroom. They wanted to be witnessed in the act.

One article said that the men had a history of making false police calls against each other (possibly they attempted to get busted in the past unsuccessfully).

Someone else has told me that 2 of the men tried to challenge the courts on homosexual marriage in the past.

The police didn't "break" into the men's home. This article is so biased in its presentation of the facts as to be pure propaganda.

Who needs this RINO anyway? Elsewhere on FR someone has copied Sullivan's opus letter to the GOP.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Well I am neither orthodox, nor jewish. I am a methodist. And if I remember correctly, the jewish faith also has a big thing about NOT eating pork. Do you want to outlaw eating pork also?

[Paul C. Jesup]

I know what you mean. And aren't we all suppose have fences on our roofs.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You do realize that if the Christians had not been so open that we would not have a Bible of any kind because the Rome Emperor (I cannot remember which one at the moment) would not have become Christian and he would not have commanded for the Bible to be made. By the way, I wonder what is in the Book of Ralph (it was not included in the Bible)?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Finally I have found some to talk to that knows about this stuff.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Finally I have found someone to talk to that knows about this stuff.

[razorbak]

1Cor.6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.