Posted on 06/26/2003 6:15:35 PM PDT by Polycarp
You claim that He holds "freedom" to be the ultimate Good--to be preserved at all costs.
Cite, please?
Post one.
Don't post an anti-sodomy law, post an anti same-sex sodomy law.
The same was true of sodomy -- "the crime that dare not speak its name". The "liberation" of homosexuals from the constraints of law that began in 1969 and continues today is just the latest battle in the ongoing Culture War.
Ten years from now, when Christian parents are fighting to keep their pre-teen boys from having to attend the mandatory Man-Boy Touch Encounter "classes" at the local schoolhouse, the same people who support the normalization of sodomy today will be supporting the normalization of "transgenerational love". I can almost hear them now, arguuing that "differences in age are merely arbitrary distinctions", that "no one's rights are infringed by the act of two males of different ages having loving sex in the privacy of a Touch Encounter booth" and that "the only opponents of sex between adults and children are religious fanatics who wish to impose a Taliban-like theocracy on freedom-loving Americans".
Of course, long before things get to that point this religious fanatic will be either sitting in some re-education center pumped full of Happy Juice, or I'll be dead -- but you see my point.
Just because the Supreme Court demands we tolerate your advocacy of sexual perversion does not mean you now have license to pervert the English language. Your statement was "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago". That statement was a lie, because every state had a "law outlawing same-sex sodomy".
Now, you keep calling me a liar
That would be because you are lying. You have been given multiple opportunities to restate your original statement in a way that is technically accurate. You continue to refuse to do so.
Either put up a law banning same-sex sodomy prior to the 1970's, or I'll come by and wash your mouth out with soap.
Once again, every state in the US had a law banning same-sex sodomy before the 1960s. Every one. Your continued attempts to suggest otherwise and your silly threats cannot change that historical fact.
I don't want a law that banned all sodomy
Somehow I'm not surprised.
I want you to post a law banning same-sex sodomy that was in the books anywhere in the US prior to the 1970's
Once again, the sodomy laws of every state banned same-sex sodomy during those times. Several (such as Marylands's F 27-554) were ruled not to apply to non-commercial, private heterosexual conduct; thus those laws even fit your new, misleading definition ("When the law stopped pertaining to all people, it became a same-sex sodomy law.").
Freedom is not an ultimate good. I don't even think the idea of "ultimate good has any meaning. Freedom is a condition of relationship among men. It is a gift from God. The ideas of good and evil are determined by referencing what is to be judged to the absolute moral code,(Matt 22 below and Moses to start) that protects life and rights. Freedom in itself is good, because it protects the nature and life of men and allows all to be free from the coercion of others, including fools, satin and those that are like him. See #323 When you do, replace the word God with man. ( nobody's perfect)
""I Am the Lord Your God. Have no strange gods (including "freedom" and YOUR will) before ME."
Freedom is a condition as above, not a god. My will is not a god either. God is the one quoted in the first 4 books of the NT. God summarized the 10 here, He said, Matt22:37-40
Jesus replied: " Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
In order to love someone, who do you go to to know them? Is it not the one you're interested in? Why would I go first elsewhere, when the one I'm searching for stands in front of me? He said, no one knows the Father, but though Him(Jesus). That's where I go to know Him. Moses, Paul, Ignasius, they're all men. All I would learn by going to them is who they are, not who God is, because I ignored what God said and went to learn of Him from men.
Now it appears that you are not only a liar, but you are brain-damaged. It is impossible to post an "anti same-sex sodomy law" without posting "an anti-sodomy law". If you think you can win an argument just by demanding the impossible, then you are a fool as well as a liar.
Your original statement was "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago", and that statement is a lie. Stop trying to change the subject and admit what you said was false.
I shall be blunt. Anal sex was outlawed in this country. Period. Didn't matter who was involved. People didn't want heterosexual married couples who engaged in the practice to face jail time, so they narrowed the law to fit one group of people. That is fact. You can argue the merits. Perhaps you believe that it shouldn't be prosecuted between married heterosexual couples, but it doesn't change the fact that the law technically involved everybody until the newer laws.
Go ahead, post one single example of one single same-sex anti-sodomy law enacted anywhere in the United States prior to 1970.
I guess the evidence is mounting as who the clear liar truly is...is your nose growing yet?
I know exactly what I meant with my statement, and you know exactly what I meant by my statement, and most adults who frequent this site know exactly what I meant with my statement. But you jumped on the semantics surrounding my statement, and chose to parse words, and issue ad hominem attacks.
You know, that actually reminds me of someone...
And if someone were to make a statement that said "There was not a single law outlawing red heads' eating of tomatoes in this country 100 years ago" under the assumed facts above, that statement would be false, because the law would have outlawed the eating of tomatoes by everyone, red heads included.
That's because you're lying. It's nothing personal.
but you have yet to post one shred of evidence to my lying.
Post 204. You stated: "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago"
That statement you made is a lie. When someone lies, like you did in post 204, the person asserting the lie is called a "liar", or someone who is "lying".
I know exactly what I meant with my statement, and you know exactly what I meant by my statement, and most adults who frequent this site know exactly what I meant with my statement. But you jumped on the semantics surrounding my statement
You have been given numerous occasions to re-state your assertion in a manner that is factually and historically correct. The original post could be excused as being merely a mis-statement of the facts if you would have corrected yourself. But even in your later posts, you still insist upon the truthfulness of that statement, which is quite clearly a lie. If your statement had instead been that "Not only was same-sex sodomy illegal in this country 100 years ago, but so was heterosexual sodomy" then that statement would be true. But you continue to insist that "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy", when the truth is that every state had laws outlawing same-sex sodomy, as well as other abominations.
You know, that actually reminds me of someone...
A self-portrait? It would explain your assertions...
You've completely missed the constitutional point. Or rather, you're making the point for the side you oppose.
Under the system of federalism, states' legislatures make (and repeal) laws, not the Supreme Court. If Vermont voters want to legalize sodomy --and apparently a majority of them did-- then fine. Do it. But don't ram it down the throats of Texans. Or Utahns. Or Nebraskans.
But that's precisely what the Supreme Court has done.
Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays and shoots women in the head in soccer stadiums for acts of unfaithfulness.
Who's talking about establishing a fundamentalist state? Only you.
Furthermore, most are disgusted with the double standards of those who want to enforce sodomy laws against gays, but not heterosexuals.
Many laws are meant to be reflections the standards of the community. They were never intended to be "enforced" by police barging into peoples' bedrooms. Most of the arrests that brought about cases of this nature, e.g. Griswold and Bowers, were set-ups by liberals who wanted to foist their unpopular opinions on the rest of us via the courts -- i.e., by fiat, because they knew they couldn't get their way democratically. Lawrence reeks of the same kind of set-up too.
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.