Replies

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.

"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?"

Honestly I can't imagine that people having sex with animals is this huge problem society faces. It happens every day out on sheep ranches but you never really think about it. I think it's sick, and I think it's animal abuse, but in the grand scheme of things it's just a nothing event. It'll never be mainstream.

I think the bigger issue is still whether or not people have the right to choose who they have sex with.

"Similarly, laws against polygamy, incest (between consenting, related, adults), and so on are out the window."

Again, incest is disgusting but I think once you have consenting adults I don't know if there is much reason to throw them in jail for it. Polygamy is another issue entirely because it involves marriage. Since the state becomes involved in the marriage then it has an interest and therefore a say in who can marry... except in the case of religious marriages, I think the state should stay out of them. "But, in typical narcissistic fashion, they fail to look beyond their own bottom line to the wider implications of their quest."

Oh ok. We should just sit back and get arrested because after all.. if we're allowed by the government to have sex, next thing you know it will be a Mexican donkey show in every living room in America. Right?