Legalize Sodomy?

[Poisson]

Auberon Quin:

The US Supreme Court held this year that homosexual sodomy is not criminal conduct.

High time, too. What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of the state, as long as (a) both consent, (b) both are over-age, and (c) nobody is harmed.

What is over age? and Why should the government decide what is over age or not? On whose moral authority should age of consent be determined? Yours? Mine? Mohameds?

 

[Poisson]

Vitus:

Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong. I do not want my ideas of right and wrong forced upon anyone, just as I would not want anothers morals forced upon me. I do not want to live in a country that has moral police (like the Taliban of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia) that robs me or anyone else of their free will.

Not everyone thinks that beastiality, polygamy and incest are wrong either.

 

[Brad]

Auberon Quin:

Numerous states still have laws on the books that criminalize sodomy; some criminalize homosexual sodomy, others criminalize all sodomy. Those laws are generally very old, and they were not enforced at all. The situation in Lawrence (the US Supreme Court case) came about because a neighbor ratted out Lawrence and his lover to the police, who actually came and arrested them.

Many states also have laws criminalizing abortion and adultery on their books. Anti-abortion laws are not enforced because of Roe; I believe anti-adultery laws were also struck down, but I don’t remember the name of the case or when it was decided.

Zange, I’d disagree with your use of the phrase “judicial activism” to describe the court’s role in striking down unconstitutional laws. That’s what the court is supposed to do, and it has been doing that since Marbury v. Madison, in 1808.

The tyranny of the majority is a real concern, at least if you happen to find yourself in the minority. And while it’s easy to say that the majority can always get its way by amending the Constitution, the fact remains that amending the Constitution is designed to be extremely difficult to protect against this very problem. The Constitution is a check on the power of the majority.

The role of the courts is to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the excecutive are in accord with the principles enshrined in the Constitution. (Do the courts always do a good job? Of course not.) If you amend the Constitution to, say, ban alcoholic beverages or allow the reintroduction of human slavery, then it becomes the duty of the courts under the Constitution to strike down laws that conflict with those amendments.

I do not believe that either the majority or the minority is always morally right. But whether somebody is morally right isn’t the test of whether their conduct is punishable under the law. In the view of Catholics, it is a mortal sin (at least it used to be; I’ve lost track) to miss Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, but that is not conduct that the state should punish.

SpaceGhost, as for bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, you don’t mind if I fight you at every turn, do you? Leave Heaven to God, and spend your time here getting ready and working for a just and orderly society.

Once again, I realize that my views disagree strongly with the views that many of you hold. I appreciate the civility and courtesy with which you’ve treated me, and I hope I’ve been similarly civil and courteous in response.

Quin

The reason that it is judicial activism is not because judges are not allowed to declare something unconstitutional, but because the judges have not properly interpreted the constitution in doing so. In Roe v. Wade, the court used an imaginary “right to privacy” to declare the abortion law unconstitutional. Further the court frequently uses “separation of church and state” to declare any public display referring to God to be unconstitutional. Neither of these phrases exist in the constitution. As a result, the courts make up their own laws.

Another example is yesterday’s decision in New Paltz, New York that said the ministers that married homosexual couples did not violate the law because the state had an anti-gay bias. This has nothing to do with the law which states homosexual marriages to be illegal. The judges are creating, rather than interpreting the law. The are becoming increasingly aggressive in inserting their opinion into law. This is judicial activism.

Futher, the sodomy law does not just restrict what 2 people want to do in their bedroom. It also fails to protect victims of rape, where in many cases, the criminal is also charged with sodomy. If sodomy is illegal, the criminal has free reign to commit sodomy during a rape because there cannot be any additional charges.

 

[Melchior]

Vitus:

Just a couple nitpicks, homosexuality was not the sin Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed for, it was for inhospitality. Secondly, not all homosexual relationships invovle sodomy.

Of course homosexuality was the sin that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for, among others. They certainly were not hospitable when they demanded Lot send the “men” out so they could have sex with them. That seems a tad bit beyond mere inhospitality to me.

Mel

 

[fix]

Vitus:

Just a couple nitpicks, homosexuality was not the sin Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed for, it was for inhospitality. Secondly, not all homosexual relationships invovle sodomy.

Personally, I do not want to see the govenrment getting involved in bedroom issues or issues involving spirituality. It is not the role of government to enforce personal morals. I would not want them banning pork because it is an offense to Muslims, or caffeine because of Mormans or public prayer because of athiests.

Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong. I do not want my ideas of right and wrong forced upon anyone, just as I would not want anothers morals forced upon me. I do not want to live in a country that has moral police (like the Taliban of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia) that robs me or anyone else of their free will.

And while I may try to convince others that certain actions are right and wrong, I would never force that upon another person. If I wouldn’t do that to another, why would I want a government to do that?

What a liberal spin. Where in the bible did God kill people for not being hospitable? Sodomy is one of the few sins mentioned that cries out to heaven for justice. It is grave sin. It is deadly.

Banning pork and a perverted act are not equal.

Forcing is not the issue. Either we live in a civilized society or we are given over to disorder as just punishment.

 

[BrianDay]

Vitus:

Just a couple nitpicks, homosexuality was not the sin Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed for, it was for inhospitality.

Can you back that up? That assertion is a recent development used to justify homosexual behavior.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

Brad:

Futher, the sodomy law does not just restrict what 2 people want to do in their bedroom. It also fails to protect victims of rape, where in many cases, the criminal is also charged with sodomy. If sodomy is illegal, the criminal has free reign to commit sodomy during a rape because there cannot be any additional charges.

In my state, at least, the criminal code brakes rape into four different levels, depending on the results, the specific type of conduct, and the level of force involved. That has the effect of accomplishing what you want to do.

I do not know what other states do; I imagine their laws are similar.

And you’re right about judicial activism. It is a charge levied against judges who overreach their constitutional basis. The “right to privacy” first became law in Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that states could not ban the sale of contraceptives to married couples. The right to privacy is definitely a reach; I go back and forth in my mind as to whether it was an unconstitutional reach or not.

I am not familiar with the New Paltz decision. What court was it in? As for “separation of church and state,” that concept’s being beaten to death over on the politics board. Come join us.

Quin.

 

[space_ghost]

SpaceGhost, as for bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, you don’t mind if I fight you at every turn, do you? Leave Heaven to God, and spend your time here getting ready and working for a just and orderly society.

Once again, I realize that my views disagree strongly with the views that many of you hold. I appreciate the civility and courtesy with which you’ve treated me, and I hope I’ve been similarly civil and courteous in response.

Quin

I don’t mind the fight at all… but I feel that God commands us to help bring about the Kingdon of Heaven on earth… and society will pass… I welcome those views that differ from mine… that’s what makes it interesting… and every now and then although we may disagree, it helps me to see others more clearly… i have never felt any feeling of un-civility from you, and your responses have always been courteous… see you in other threads…

 

[Brad]

Auberon Quin:

In my state, at least, the criminal code brakes rape into four different levels, depending on the results, the specific type of conduct, and the level of force involved. That has the effect of accomplishing what you want to do.

I do not know what other states do; I imagine their laws are similar.

And you’re right about judicial activism. It is a charge levied against judges who overreach their constitutional basis. The “right to privacy” first became law in Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that states could not ban the sale of contraceptives to married couples. The right to privacy is definitely a reach; I go back and forth in my mind as to whether it was an unconstitutional reach or not.

I am not familiar with the New Paltz decision. What court was it in? As for “separation of church and state,” that concept’s being beaten to death over on the politics board. Come join us.

Quin.

For the New Paltz decision, see

guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4307720,00.html

With research I have done so far to date, I really believe we need either stronger checks and balances on the judicial branch or to act on the existing procedures that are allowed. Too few can do too much for too long that affect too many. In other words, unelected judges can be appointed for very long periods and make sweeping decisions that affect millions of people that they are not held accoutable to, nor do they represent.

Oh, I’ve been on the political boards but I’ve taken a short break - will be back. Thanks for the offer.

 

[Vitus]

An understanding of the story, of the time and of the people gives us insight to the story. I’m not saying that homosexuality is not a sin in the OT. Judaism believes this, as does Christianity. Sodom & Gomorrah were wicked cities and Lot could not find a righteous person there. But to say the main cause of the cities destruction was homosexuality is disingenous. The angels sent were not treated with respect, causing Lot and his family to flee, which led to the destruction.

What is the point of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah? That God destorys the wicked? If that is what you read into the story, then I’m thinking you missed the whole point.

But if you want to read that into it, that is fine. It doesn’t change the point I was making.

I don’t want the govenment imposing personal morality on me. That doesn’t include the strawmen presented in beastiality or pedophilia. The objection to homosexuality is based purely on religious reasons. Wanting the govenment to enforce a religous based based law is wrong.

It’s wrong in Afghanistan, it’s wrong in Saudia Arabia. It most certainly is wrong in the United States.

 

[Poisson]

Melchior:

Of course homosexuality was the sin that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for, among others. They certainly were not hospitable when they demanded Lot send the “men” out so they could have sex with them. That seems a tad bit beyond mere inhospitality to me.

Jude 7 seems to support you as well where it equates the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with “unnatural lusts”.

 

[fix]

Vitus:

An understanding of the story, of the time and of the people gives us insight to the story. I’m not saying that homosexuality is not a sin in the OT. Judaism believes this, as does Christianity. Sodom & Gomorrah were wicked cities and Lot could not find a righteous person there. But to say the main cause of the cities destruction was homosexuality is disingenous. The angels sent were not treated with respect, causing Lot and his family to flee, which led to the destruction.

What is the point of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah? That God destorys the wicked? If that is what you read into the story, then I’m thinking you missed the whole point.

But if you want to read that into it, that is fine. It doesn’t change the point I was making.

I don’t want the govenment imposing personal morality on me. That doesn’t include the strawmen presented in beastiality or pedophilia. The objection to homosexuality is based purely on religious reasons. Wanting the govenment to enforce a religous based based law is wrong.

It’s wrong in Afghanistan, it’s wrong in Saudia Arabia. It most certainly is wrong in the United States.

Aside from modern dissenters, can you tell us which early Church fathers or other loyal Catholics have interpreted that passage as you do? It is usually those who dissent from the magisterium who propose such a novel interpretation.

Homosexual “sex” is wrong not only for religious reasons. That anyone would claim it is wrong only on religious grounds only shows how far as a culture we have fallen from the truth.

It is not like eating meat on Friday’s. It violates the natural law.

 

[The_Barrister]

space ghost:

How in the world would you enforce such a law… do you break donw the doors with a camera… I am 4 square with the wrongness of the action, but i don’t know about making laws, wasting time, paper and manpower trying to enforce…

Some states still have adultry laws on their books… are they enforced?

I was not aware that laws are made on the basis of their enforceability.

Of course, God is the ultimate enforcer.

 

[Brad]

Vitus:

An understanding of the story, of the time and of the people gives us insight to the story. I’m not saying that homosexuality is not a sin in the OT. Judaism believes this, as does Christianity. Sodom & Gomorrah were wicked cities and Lot could not find a righteous person there. But to say the main cause of the cities destruction was homosexuality is disingenous. The angels sent were not treated with respect, causing Lot and his family to flee, which led to the destruction.

What is the point of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah? That God destorys the wicked? If that is what you read into the story, then I’m thinking you missed the whole point.

But if you want to read that into it, that is fine. It doesn’t change the point I was making.

I don’t want the govenment imposing personal morality on me. That doesn’t include the strawmen presented in beastiality or pedophilia. The objection to homosexuality is based purely on religious reasons. Wanting the govenment to enforce a religous based based law is wrong.

It’s wrong in Afghanistan, it’s wrong in Saudia Arabia. It most certainly is wrong in the United States.

Here is the passage. Draw you own conclusions, but I think it is pretty clear these men were wicked because of what they were doing, not because of what they were not doing:

Genesis 19:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [1] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

Continued…
.

 

[Brad]

Continued from last post…

18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, [2] please! 19 Your [3] servant has found favor in your [4] eyes, and you [5] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar. [6] )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land

Also, all of the govenrments laws are religously based. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. Every law we have has its basis in protecting a person or group from being adversly affected by the immoral actions of another person or group. Our political laws are judements off morality, which has its basis in religion - their is an inseparable link

 

[The_Barrister]

Melchior:

All of society is harmed. It is a modern myth to say that there is no harm done is not direct and physical to individuals. Societies rise and fall based on what they tolerate. All actions whether done in private or not has a societal ripple effect.

So to say that a private act does no harm to others is simply nonsense.

Mel

Absolutely true.

In the course of history, every society that has adopted and institutionalized homosexuality as a way of life soon perished. This “generation” of homosexuals believe that a combination of politics and science can save them.

 

[fix]

The Barrister:

Absolutely true.

In the course of history, every society that has adopted and institutionalized homosexuality as a way of life soon perished. This “generation” of homosexuals believe that a combination of politics and science can save them.

True. The homosexualists have infiltrated fields like psychology and use junk science as a cudgel to push their agenda. The average person has fallen prey to the brainwashing that homosexual sex is like heterosexual sex and should be treated as such. It is an illness that should be treated. Prayer, compassion, and truth with charity are what is called for.

I can’t believe we have reached the point where legalizing a perverted act whould even be open to discussion.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

fix:

I can’t believe we have reached the point where legalizing a perverted act whould even be open to discussion.

We haven’t. It’s already legalized and, short of an amendment to the Constitution, there is not much anybody can do about it.

 

[Southernrich]

Auberon Quin:

We haven’t. It’s already legalized and, short of an amendment to the Constitution, there is not much anybody can do about it.

I believe that it’s more correct to say that it was decriminalized rather than legalized.

 

[Southernrich]

fix:

It is an illness that should be treated. Prayer, compassion, and truth with charity are what is called for.

If it is an illness, and if prayer, compassion and truth with charity are what is called for - and I do agree with you here - then making it a criminal act goes against the measures really needed.