UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

NEW YORKER ^ | 12/16/02 issue | Hendrik Hertzberg

[Karsus]

Don't you have something better to do? Like killing married couples who perform oral sex on each other?

[Karsus]

So you too think that if my wife and I have oral sex I/she/we should be killed by the state?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I'm not a Libertarian.

§ 4-1. Common law declared to be in force.

Keep swinging the baton. You obviously don't have the mental acumen to do anything else. That's okay, of course---the world needs ditchdiggers too.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Will the the Deptartment of Homeland Security be issuing a heightened "God's Wrath Alert Level Warning" for those days?

Yes, especially if you try and balance the load by having those patented "orgies" "you people" are famous for having. Should that occur, the GWALW will be cardinal's robe red.

[Bluntpoint]

Last time I looked, God did not grade sins. It is either a sin or it is not. So are you for the death penality for not keeping the sabbath? Idolitry?

[Bluntpoint]

So you too think that if my wife and I have oral sex I/she/we should be killed by the state?


Personally, I think you may need to restrain from oral sex until the Supreme Court grants Cert.

FF578 and his congregation are already stockpiling stones.

[Bluntpoint]

"The first time I suggested that sodomy should be a capital offense, the usual suspects pilloried me also."

Usual suspects? Do you mean those people that had you arrested for peeping in their bedroom windows?

[Bluntpoint]

Let me guess, you want to be in charge of the evidence library. You may not have a definition for sodomy, but you know it when you watch it over and over and over and over again.

[ZULU]

Why are certain individuals in this posting area so fixed WITH the right to commit sodomy? Like I said, what two three dollar bills do in the privacy of their own homes really doesn't concern me.

What does concern me is the apparent movement, supported by a substantial number of sodomites, to force acceptance of their preversions on society at large by DEMANDING equal rights with normal coouples in marriages, the opportunity to proselytize their life styles in public, with groups like the Boy Scouts, in schools, etc.

Look, if they want to poke each other in private, fine. But when they make a public issue of it, don't expect normal people not become offended by them. A society has a perfect right to establish and expect certain acceptable public behavior patterns. Guys kissing guys in a sexual manner and similar more perverted activites have never been so accepted in America and I see no reason why this should change.

[ZULU]

You grow up. I'm not Jewish, but if I were, I would be deeply offended by your totally inappropriate analogy between Judaism, and ethical religious belier system, with something as vile as sodomy.

[jjm2111]

I was just mocking your support of the idea of putting sodomites to death.

[jjm2111]

Guys kissing guys in a sexual manner and similar more perverted activites have never been so accepted in America and I see no reason why this should change.

Blacks at one time were not accepted in America (except as slaves) and I believe both slavers and later segregationists used Biblical passages to justify it.

to force acceptance of their preversions on society at large

How? at gunpoint?

by DEMANDING equal rights with normal coouples in marriages

For legal secular purposes, how does this harm anyone? Churches do not have to bless gay 'unions'.

opportunity to proselytize their life styles in public...

It's called free speech. We don't have to listen. The only place where I think this should be abrogated is in schools. Teaching preteens about "golden showers" and crap like that is wrong.

[ZULU]

"Blacks at one time were not accepted in America (except as slaves) and I believe both slavers and later segregationists used Biblical passages to justify it."

Again, I find drawing parallels between an individual's ethnicity and the perversion of sodomy is offensive. They are not analogous situations.

"How? at gunpoint?"

Its not necessary to use a gun when you have the power of the liberal mass media, Hollywood, and radical political groups and those who pander to them in a social atmosphere which has been deliberately contrived to make any effort to protect and preserve traditional social and moral values
"politically incorrect".

"For legal secular purposes, how does this harm anyone? Churches do not have to bless gay 'unions'."

In every society I ever read about, (with the exception of certain decendant "cultures" like Imperial Rome) marriage was a union between a male and a female for the primary purpose of procreation. Certain rights, priviledges, approbation, etc, is extended to such unions, such as insurnace and medical benefits for both partners. It is unfair to require the majority of the working public which does not approve of such unions to be forced to support the "partners" of such unions by their payroll deductions and taxes. If a homosexual couple wishes to form a legal partnership, the legal mechanism for doing so already exists. But since what they are really striving for is social approbation and acceptance, they have made an issue of attempting to equivilize their relationship with a marriage.

"It's called free speech. We don't have to listen. The only place where I think this should be abrogated is in schools. Teaching preteens about "golden showers" and crap like that is wrong. "

Its wrong because it advocates an immoral and perverted lifestyle. The arguments you have just presented have been put forth by NAMBLA and other such groups. Does this mean society has to tolerate public demonstrations in support of practises like prostitution, sado-masochism, bestiality and other similar activities?

Homosexuals per se are not necessarily offensive people. But their personal sexual practises are, and consequently society has a right and responsiblity to restrict the public practise and proselytization of these practises, especially to young children and those who do not choose to view them as they consider them offensive.

I think a reasonable approach is not to seek out or discriminate against homosexuals per se for persecution on the basis of their personal practises, but at the same time, to restrict their public practise of this activity and prevent their recruiting young children into it.

[Mr. Mojo]

Evidently your own ancestors supported the right to marry close relatives.

[jjm2111]

"Again, I find drawing parallels between an individual's ethnicity and the perversion of sodomy is offensive. They are not analogous situations."

Yes they are. The opposition against gays stems from religious faith. The oppsosition against Blacks at the time stemmed from religious faith. The Bible says slavery is ok. Therefore it must be ok. The Bible says sodomy is evil, therefore it must be evil.

If a homosexual couple wishes to form a legal partnership, the legal mechanism for doing so already exists.

They do?

But since what they are really striving for is social approbation and acceptance, they have made an issue of attempting to equivilize their relationship with a marriage.

They can try. It probably will not happen.

Its wrong because it advocates an immoral and perverted lifestyle...Does this mean society has to tolerate public demonstrations in support of practises like prostitution, sado-masochism, bestiality and other similar activities?

Does society have to tolerate public demonstrations by the KKK, Black Panthers, NRA, Million Mom March? Just because you and I disagree does not mean they cannot speak out. They have a constitutional right to do so.

But their personal sexual practises are [I agree], and consequently society has a right and responsiblity to restrict the public practise and proselytization of these practises, especially to young children and those who do not choose to view them as they consider them offensive.

It's still free speech. If a gay man wants to shout "I'm here, and I'm queer." from the rooftops, it is his Constitutional right. The government cannot stop him. The government can and will stop him and 10 of his buddies from having a circle jerk on the town square. But the government can and will stop a couple from having heterosex on the town square.

[MEGoody]

"The Bible says slavery is ok."

The bible does deal with slavery by telling slave owners how they should treat their slaves, not in saying that 'thou shalt have slaves'. By the way, Israelite slaves were of two kinds:

1. individuals who sold themselves into slavery because there was no such thing as bankruptcy court back then, or

prisoners of war.

It was not a sin to own or not own slaves. What as a sin was to own slaves for improper reasons and treat them improperly.

Same gender sex is a sin. Period.

[jjm2111]

It was not a sin to own or not own slaves.

And in that lies the problem for me. How can our Holy Creator bless the ownership of another human, who was created each and every one of us in His image with free Will condone such a monstrous thing? A well-treated slave is still a slave.

When one is owned by another they are deprived of life. Maybe not the physical aspect but of the essence of life.

Could it be perhaps that some parts of the Bible are wrong? That the words were written contemporarily and conformed to the culture of the day? I don't know. I don't have the answers.

[ZULU]

"Yes they are. The opposition against gays stems from religious faith."

Only in a very broad sense. Homosexuality was condemned by societies other than Judaeo-Christian ones and a lot of atheists are not supportive of a homosexual agenda.

"The opposition against Blacks at the time stemmed from religious faith."

The "opposition" to black stemmed from economic issues. Black slaves survived better in the southern plantation environment than indentured whites and they were easier to locate when they ran away. Post-civil war feelings towards blacks were rooted in pure racism based on an Anglocentric view of the world. Extracting portions of the Bible to justiy an ancient and evil practise made as much sense as using the Bible to justify multiple marriages, stoning witches, not eating pork, etc. The advocates of slavery were reaching when they tried to use a book like the bible to justify their evil practise and the more intelligent slaveowners were aware of the evil of this - the hypocracy of being a Christian and owning another human being. This is born out by the emancipation of many slaves, particularly in wills when the nearness of Divine Judgement impelled a more humane legacy by the decedant.

"They do?"

Yeah. They can form a legal partnership and agree to share their assets. A partnership is a legal instrument as well as a corporation or a sole proprietorship.

"Does society have to tolerate public demonstrations by the KKK, Black Panthers,......"

I wouldn't put the Million Mom March (although I disagree with them) or the NRA in the same category as the others. As a matter of fact, I remember a time when it was considered a crime to give moral or public support to an enemy of the United States like the NAZIs and Communists.

Like everything else, the First Amendment isn't absolute and perhaps we have become just a little too tolerant of aberrant nutcases. But I am not certain about that.

"If a gay man wants to shout "I'm here, and I'm queer." from the rooftops, it is his Constitutional right. The government cannot stop him."

Fine. That's his choice. But the heterosexual masses consequently wish to have nothing to do with him, that's THEIR choice.

" ..the government can and will stop a couple from having heterosex on the town square. "

Precisely. Because society has a right to protect public morals and the proliferation of a homosexual lifestyle is antithetical to the moral interests of our society, or so the majority of Americans believe.

[jjm2111]

"Homosexuality was condemned by societies other than Judaeo-Christian ones and a lot of atheists are not supportive of a homosexual agenda. "

Quite right, and some cultures like many Eastern ones were indifferent to homosexuals. They are even indifferent to Pedophelia (sp?) [I'm not saying this is a good thing, either].

Extracting portions of the Bible to justiy an ancient and evil practise made as much sense as using the Bible to justify multiple marriages, stoning witches, not eating pork, etc.

But the Bible does not condemn slavery or multiple marriages (at least in OT). Just as slave owners are reaching, I believe that some on this board are reaching for advocating death to gays.

They way people like us go against extremist positions is not to restrict the First Amendment but to educate, educate, educate. Look how more people turn up to protest the KKK than support it.

... Because society has a right to protect public morals ...

You're right. We are just differing on what the morals are. I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to have to learn about all sorts of aberrant sexual practices in school. I wouldn't want to see anyone having sex in public (straight or gay). But society has to treat it's citizens equally. If the government allows straight couples certain benefits it should allow the same for gays.

There are a lot of things about the way many gays act that disturb me. Sex w/ multiple partners, weird sexual practices, etc. suggest gay people probably have a lot of spiritual/mental problems. I do not envy them in any way. However, Conservatives screaming to the rooftops about how gays are living in sin annoys me more because none of us are close to perfect people. Jesus himself did say, "Remove the plank from your own eye..." Maybe God made them that way and what's in the Bible is wrong. The slavery thing was wrong. Maybe Gays are living in sin. I really don't know. But I for one will show them compassion rather than scream, "You're going to hell!". We should concentrate on making ourselves better people and bring others to holiness through our own examples.

Just my humble opinion. :)

[mrustow]

The way I figure it, by being a pro-privacy, pro-alcohol, pro-decriminalization, anti-big government libertarian, guys like ff and Curry will never be able to agree on just what re-education camp I get sent to. I may just be able to ride out this nanny-state craze and still enjoy a buzz and a **** job. :)

Dear Neo-cons....stay out of my private life. Thank you.

Yeah, man, I hear you: The Neo-cons are Our Misfortune! (Die Neo-Cons Sind Unser Unglueck!).