Then post one liar.
Post an exclusive same-sex, anti-sodomy law.
Come on liar, posta link to one.
Quit it with this "meaning of if" crap and post a same-sex, anti-sodomy law that was in effect in the US prior to the 1970's.
Keep on lying.
That you have been proved a liar cannot be negated by falsely claiming that assertion about others. You are the only one who has lied here. You are wrong even your modified definition of "same-sex sodomy law" that you used in post 349 of "When the law stopped pertaining to all people, it became a same-sex sodomy law", due to Marylands's sodomy law F 27-554, since the courts ruled that it did not apply to heterosexual couples. But that fact, even while proving your new assertion wrong, is still irrelevant, and does nothing to modify the fact that your original statement of "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago" in post 204 was a lie.
Quit it with this "meaning of if" crap and post a same-sex, anti-sodomy law that was in effect in the US prior to the 1970's
References to them have already been provided in previous posts; you ignore them and then demand them again. The fact is that prior to 1960 every state had anti-sodomy laws that made same-sex sodomy illegal, thus proving your original assertion in post #204 that "There was not a single law outlawing same-sex sodomy in this country 100 years ago" was a lie, and that you are a liar.
Keep on lying.
The proof that you are a liar is in post #204. Your laughable, and only, claim of me lying is that I have refuted your lie in that post. Rather than simply correcting your error, you irrationally chose to defend your lies.
Noting that "[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots," id., at 192, that "[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights," ibid., and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy, id., at 193, Bowers concluded that a right to engage in homo-sexual sodomy was not "‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’" id., at 192.I think Scalia contradicted you. Emphasis supplied.