[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.

[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.

[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.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Axenolith]

And not just any place. In the Book of Genesis, Sodom is a city uniquely condemned by God for its waywardness. Its sins merit utter destruction. But what are those sins? Alas, the text is not specific.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, that the insinuation in this passage is related to desire for "carnal knowledge" of the visitors (men) by other men is about obvious as all git out... (my italics)

There are obviously other sins pertaining to the town, but its a bit facetious to claim it didn't refer to the inhabitants desires for the same sex...

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:
19:5 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.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

[Mr. Mojo]

When's the last time Sullivan wrote an article about something other than sodomy?

[FirstTomato]

Andrew Sullivan says: often hysterical aversion to sodomy

Andrew Sullivan, who is often quite lucid and right except when talking about his right to put his penis into a dirty rectum (excuse the graphics but that's the truth) shows the depth of his depravity when he talks like this.

Because read between the lines here: Hysterical aversion? What? So its not enough that gays want tolerance? They attack us for our rightful aversion to this despicable practice, that has been damned throughout time for good reason, and they seek to make the immoral and unnatural not only tolerated, but the norm.

I see gays as having a terrible sickness, a cancer of immorality. And like anyone with cancer, I do not hate the person with the cancer, yet I would certainly hate them if they wished to spread their cancer over the world, and infect all of us with it. That, in effect, is what gays wish to do. They do not wish to stop with mere tolerance. They seek to make their depraved lifestyle supplant what is now the norm.

[ex-Texan]

Thank you for posting this editorial by Andrew Sullivan. It was a very good read.

I was following his logic and understanding his point of view until deep in the article he glossed over what "homosexuals really do." Then he lumped the total range of gay sexual conduct in with his "what heterosexuals do" argument. When I understood that, his fundamental intellectual dishonesty was made apparent to me. As much as I hate to admit it, the author started spinning and engaging in deceptive tactics. Shame on him.

One problem that I have with male homosexual relations is their total fascination with anal sex and the ingestion of excrement and drinking of urine. All one has to do is pick up one of the free rags the gay community publishes in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The practice is wide-spread. You may read short stories, or personal advertisements galore. The gay rags are filled with them. (To think that these rags are available in stacks for any child to pick up and read is another pet peeve of mine. But this is not the time or place to rant about gay publications).

Without getting into detail – God forbid – the ingestion of excrement is a proclivity that is utterly disgusting. It is highly offensive on its face. It is a highly risky behavior in terms of spreading many types of disease (not just STD's). Such conduct is obviously "off the charts" and "beyond the bounds" of normal human sexuality.

It is deep into the realm of pathological behavior . . . There was a secret psychological profile on Adolph Hitler that was written during World War II and later was published by the OSS. It described his "addictions" in that regard in great detail. However, allegedly, only with women who were prostitutes. The addiction was cited as strong evidence of his moral depravity and his insanity. (I believe it is still available on the Internet)

And even worse: Some people even could write pages and pages about Secret Satanic Rituals. Marquis de Sade material, and even beyond that. But I decline to do so.

Just my humble opinion. Sorry if I offended anyone – I did not mean to offend. My intention was only to enlighten people who might be unaware.

[Russell Scott]

Homosexuals, like the Dixie Chicks, need to keep quiet. If they don't, then they should not get upset when a lot of people disagree with them vehemently.

[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!)