I’m responding to the nonsense drivel that you spewed about “sodomy laws” not having anything to do with “homosexuality”..
Why then ,pray tell, does the queer community fight to have the sodomy laws declared “unconstitutional” by activist judicial fiat? The USSC case Lawrence vs Texas was a homosexual issue.
As far as learning how to read you need to take your own advice..
Sodomy:
Cultural Dictionary
sodomy [( sod -uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. ( See pederast.)
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: ‘sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French sodomie sexual intercourse between men, from Old French, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom, from the supposed homosexual practices of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11
: the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex — sod·om·ize /’sä-d&-”mIz/ transitive verb
Note : According to the Bible, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently including anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the city of Sodom.
Are you a Texan?
friendly_doc
Since Jun 1, 2010
Welcome to FR
What I said was that homosexual acts are an example of sodomy, but that the term encompasses a lot more besides. In the AMERICAN legal tradition, the term sodomy meant a range of non-reproductive sex acts between two people of the same sex or between people of the opposite sex.
The content of the sodomy laws varied between different states (I think the ones in Texas were amended in the 1970s to exclude acts by married couples), but the purpose of the law was the same. It was an expression of communal morality and a reminder to people that sex should be about procreation.
Interestingly, at times the sodomy laws were used against heterosexual men who were accused - but acquitted - of rape. On the assumption that there is no smoke without fire, and following feminist pressure, the accusing woman was asked whether oral sex had taken place. If the answer was yes, and even if the act was consensual, the man was then charged with sodomy.
It’s true that homosexuals were pushing for the repeal of such laws (obviously homosexual sodomy is more common than heterosexual sodomy), but sodomy and homosexuality are different things.
Whether such laws should be brought back is a complicated matter. Whether we like it or not, sex of every conceivable description is now well and truly “out of the closet”, and that would put the police in a difficult position. Either they try to enforce the law properly, in which case they would have to question millions of people, or the law is left unenforced, in which case the law would be brought into disrepute.
On balance, I believe reintroducing sodomy laws (and anti-fornication and anti-adultery laws) is not a good idea at this time. In a different time and place, one may come to a different conclusion. As they say, politics is the art of the possible.