Legalize Sodomy?

[The_Barrister]

Auberon Quin:

I finally broke down and read your article.

It said nothing – not one thing – about any society that institutionalized homosexuality and collapsed as a result.

So I am still waiting for that proof you promised me. Or would you rather just withdraw the claim?

Don’t make me file a motion with the court…

Oooo… that must be one of them thar “lawyer” terms.

I thought you wanted a demonstration of why, not a list. I thought the list was obvious, but I’ve overestimated you. The article demonstrates why society cannot survive by institutionalizing homosexuality. By definition, homosexuality destroys the entire concept of family. When family falls from favor as the key unifying structure in society, society falls like a house of cards. Capische?

Societies that have institutionalized homosexuality and failed? Here’s a few where we have actual documentation: Sodom. Gomorrah. Rome. Sparta. Greece. Persia. Babylon. Pre-Confucian Chinese societies. Pagan Egypt. Entire tribes in Africa, although it is mostly frowned upon now but regaining favor where Islam is weakest. Many Polynesian nations/societies (kings often had numerous male prostitutes at their service). Aztecs (Florentine Codex - they even had their own “god” of homosexuality - Xochipili). Native American tribes had their eupemistically-named “two-spirited people”, documented in Crow, Sioux, Shoshone, Navajo, Yokut, Ogala, Fox, Sack and Zuni peoples. Mayans took homosexuality to an art form, incorporating such acts prior to conducting human sacrifices. Much of this can be found on the web and in Michel Foucault’s book History of Sexuality.

Before you start complaining that no “modern” societies have thus failed, keep in mind that Christianity and Islam have held back the tide for 2,000 years. And societies that once institutionalized the practice (feudal Japan, pre-C China) made the necessary adjustments to disinherit the practice before they failed.

FYI: Carl Wilson’s book Our Dance Has Turned to Death details the seven stages of stagnation and destruction every nation/society has gone through, of which the third stage is a devaluation of family, replaced by increased preoccupation with expanded sexual “norms,” of which homosexuality and other perversions are usually preeminent.

I could not care less what a bunch of politically-motivated psychologists have to save about homosexuality. we know the truth. Christianity (the Catholic Church) has taught, for almost 2,000 years now, that homosexuality (the act) is sinful.

What don’t you understand about that?

 

[Vitus]

Brad:

You are trying to put me into a corner whereby it would take exhaustive research to come up with exact facts. As the same time, you will not tell me where your definiton of the morality of an act comes from. If you feel uncomfortable discussing your morals then I will re-phrase the question - where does anyone’s definition of whether an act is moral or not come from that cannot be traced to a religious belief?

You made the claim that all laws are based on religious beliefs. That’s a mighty big statement. It would take some mighty big research.

Again, my morals do not matter. Morals differ. People that have no religious beliefs do not decide moral decisions based on what they consider nothing. Communists states such as China do not base laws on religious beliefs as they are athiestic in nature.

Shared morals can have different roots.

In any event, 27 of the founding fathers had seminary degrees. Of all the founding fathers, only 2 could be considered non-Christian - Franklin and Jefferson. Despite this, Jefferson believed in God, he just didn’t believe that Jesus was God. One of the founding fathers (don’t remember name) was governor of Delaware and Supreme Court Justice of Pennsylvania. When a criminal was convicted to be put to death, he asked the individual to accept Jesus Christ and come into a relationship with Him before facing death. The Bible was instituted into courtrooms upon which people swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God. The dollar says “In God We Trust”. The Pledge states “One Nation Under God”. In many state supreme courts, the justices take oaths to uphold the laws of God while on the bench. All of our first schools were Christian schools. Textbooks included study on the Bible.

And yet they specifically included in the Constitution for a governmental system to be not take a stance on religion. They didn’t want the government to restrict religion by it’s constituants either. People are free to practice religion, government is not. People in government are free to practice religion, the government itself is not.

If you are to imply that somehow we came up with laws simply out of intellectual minds who refused to consider their religious beliefs in doing so, you are making a stretch that could not be proven in a court of law simply by the above evidence. And there is much, much more. To imply that they instituted laws in
America despite of their religious beliefs, you are saying they completely ignored their moral foundation and yet still came up with laws that synchronized with this foundation. How could this be?

Again, shared morality does not mean shared roots.

 

[Vitus]

The Barrister:

Christianity (the Catholic Church) has taught, for almost 2,000 years now, that homosexuality (the act) is sinful.

What don’t you understand about that?

Which is fine, it is the Church’s place to determine what is sinful and what is not.

However, it is not the govenment’s place to make laws based soley on the Church’s ideology.

I do not want the govenment inforcing religion. I do not want a U.S. Taliban. I do not want Morality Police as they have in Saudi Arabia. Even if I agree with the concepts of the religion, I do not want the govenment involved as it is not their place.

We do not live in a theocracy. The state is not Chuch ruled, nor should it be. The founding fathers understood this. Why don’t you understand that?

 

[The_Barrister]

Vitus:

Of course it’s my opinion, all morals are a matter of opinion when it comes down to it.

Buzzz. Wrong answer. Morality is a standard by which everything is judged. Like all standards, morality must have a solid foundation based on something. By definition, that standard is based in natural law. If morality is what anyone decides it is, then it has all the strength authority of a kingdom of sticks built on ever-shifting sands.

Vitus:

Many times people are in complete agreement on those opinions. Sometimes they are not.

Then who cares? It’s just an opinion, then.

Vitus:

However, I do not want the govenment dictating to me what I should consider moral and immoral when it comes to matters of personal, adult relationships.

So now you want to limit it to relationships. And that’s whatever YOU decide an “adult relationship” is, right? After all, it is just your opinion.

Vitus:

The bedrock for the law is irrelevant.

Not so. You are judged by the law. Therefore, it is in your best interest that laws are to be judged by something that doesn’t bend and sway with every political breeze. That’s lawlessness.

Vitus:

Some are opposed to sodomy due to some kind of ick factor, some due to religious reasons, some because the are just plain ignorant. If you are opposed to sodomy because it goes against YOUR morals (whatever bedrock you build that opposition on), that is fine. Your morals are not shared by all, which is also fine. When you want to impose those morals on the rest of society through governmental agencies, then there is a problem.

Wrong. Not “my” morals. They are everyone’s morals, and I did not impose them.

Vitus:

The government has no place to regulate my sexual conduct in my bedroom, behind closed doors, with a willing adult partner, regardless of the sex of that partner.

Gee. Have fun. That’s what it’s all about, right?

Vitus:

That is a strawman and you know it. I don’t debate with strawmen.

It certainly is not. The question is “What legal “standard” do you use to differentiate between one and the other?” Why does the government have a right to define who is an adult? A child of five can consent to eating an ice cream cone, right? So if sodomy is so harmless, then why can’t a 5 year old consent to it, in your slippery law based upon no solid foundation? Gee, if there is no solid foundation for your laws, then why even bother with consent? If someone says “No, I don’t want you to sodomize me,” upon what basis do you have the authority to say it’s “wrong”?

 

[Auberon_Quin]

The Barrister:

What don’t you understand about that?

Why you danced around the question for an entire day. Thanks for finally getting around to answering it. So your position is that the “institutionalization” of homosexuality caused these societies to fall?

 

[Brad]

Vitus:

Shared morals can have different roots…

Exactly. But they still have roots - what are those roots? Your argument that individual morality is a matter of opinion and therefore anyone can do what they want in privacy, if true, would not hold up any society. Everyone has been raised in an environment that teaches them some things are good and some things are bad. As a person gets older, he/she accepts or rejects these beliefs, based on additional thoughts, experiences and ideas. My argument is that all moral “goods” have a basis in religion - they have a root - they have a purpose.

For examply, you cannot legally kill your child in the privacy of your own home. You also cannot molest someone in the privacy of your home. You cannot steal someone’s credit card number in the privacy of your own home. You cannot proposition someone underage on the Internet in the privacy of your own home, even if the other person consents. These are all illegal acts done in privacy.

Now, what happens when the majority decides it is ok to have slaves again? Is that acceptable? Should it be legal? This is why an opinion is no basis for law or morality. Moral truths, based on natural law, are immutable and cannot be violated without negative consequences.

Vitus:

And yet they specifically included in the Constitution for a governmental system to be not take a stance on religion. They didn’t want the government to restrict religion by it’s constituants either. People are free to practice religion, government is not. People in government are free to practice religion, the government itself is not…

Again, you are mostly, but not completely correct. See my response above to Ken regarding the intent in the founding of this country. The government cannot mandate that anyone practice a religion - however the governmental system can, and does, use a divine authority as its basis for establishing law, swearing a president into office etc. The Supreme Court, until the 1960s, frequently relied on this divine law as its ultimate authority, and many of the state supreme courts still do.

 

[Brad]

Vitus:

However, it is not the govenment’s place to make laws based soley on the Church’s ideology.

I do not want the govenment inforcing religion. I do not want a U.S. Taliban. I do not want Morality Police as they have in Saudi Arabia. Even if I agree with the concepts of the religion, I do not want the govenment involved as it is not their place.

We do not live in a theocracy. The state is not Chuch ruled, nor should it be. The founding fathers understood this. Why don’t you understand that?

If you are a Christian (I can speak for myself that I am), then you are to try to shape laws to be in line with the divine law - we have a special responsibility to do so because we have the liberty to do so. In fact, we are called to be conscientous objectors to laws that violate divine law, such as abortion.

We are not called to institute a Taliban or Waheebi style goverment. Again, see my previous post in response to Ken regarding the founding of this country. It is because this country was founded on Christian principles that we do not mandate that people have specific religious beliefs - we do not require them to worship, we do not arrest them for sinfulness. However, there is a difference between this and informing the law of the land with divine law.

The State is not Church ruled. But when something is done that does harm to individuals and society at large, we can look to the Church for greater clarity as to the roots of its harmful nature and we can make laws to prevent futher harm to society.

Freedom to do the right thing is different than license to do whatever you want.

 

[The_Barrister]

Auberon Quin:

Why you danced around the question for an entire day. Thanks for finally getting around to answering it. So your position is that the “institutionalization” of homosexuality caused these societies to fall?

I did not have the sources at my work so I responded when I got home and reviewed them. I’m not so married to this board that I’ll drop my job so I can immediately cater to your whims.

As to your last question, I thought I was clear. Read the sources I cited. Or have someone else read them to you. I won’t spoon feed you.

 

[fix]

Vitus:

Any educated person can tell you that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. Your claim that it is “unnatural” does not hold up in that respect.

Can’t say there is homosexuality in animals or not, but it does not matter. It would be a deviation so, why would that make it legitimate?

And those without faith or whose religion permits homosexuality, how do you convince them that men and men were not meant to be together? Especially those in a loving,committed relationship?

Again, any sane person not corrupted by pop culture wisdom, knows intuitively that same sex behavior is perverse.

No it wasn’t, at least not sufficiently. How does sexual acts between consenting adults destroy culture? And what culture? Your culture? How so? If you do not like a certain sexual practice, don’t practice it.

If you don’t like bestiality, don’t do it. Not exactly sound logic or morality.

The nature of HIV and it’s effect on the immune system leaves HIV infected individuals more suseptable to many kinds of diseases. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. And precautions can be taken to reduce abrasions in any kind of sexual act. (trying to keep it as clean as possible here).

In the USA aids is spread primarily by folks who are doing things that are, or should be, criminal… homosex, shooting drugs, etc. There is no “safe” sex in those communities.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

The Barrister:

Or have someone else read them to you. I won’t spoon feed you.

Temper, temper…

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Vitus:

Adults have the the mental capacity to consent and decide for themselves what is right an wrong when it comes to actions in the privacy of their own home. What those adult choices are depend on the individual and their relationship.

Surely you can see the difference.

I am rather skeptical of the value of the “consenting adults” standard of acceptable behavior. Surely we all remember the recent Meiwes trial in Germany. Those two folks were both consenting adults, and yet I doubt that most of us would say “no harm, no foul” there.

 

[The_Barrister]

Vitus:

Any educated person can tell you that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. Your claim that it is “unnatural” does not hold up in that respect.

So you equate humans as nothing more than animals? The Bible, science and common sense teach us otherwise.

Vitus:

And those without faith or whose religion permits homosexuality, how do you convince them that men and men were not meant to be together? Especially those in a loving,committed relationship?

What’s love got to do, got to do with it? What’s love, but a second hand emotion? Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?

Seriously, if “love” is the only qualifier, then the door’s wide open to beastiality, inanimate objects, ad infinitum.

Vitus:

No it wasn’t, at least not sufficiently. How does sexual acts between consenting adults destroy culture? And what culture? Your culture? How so? If you do not like a certain sexual practice, don’t practice it.

Contrary to the modern approach to make morality whatever one determines it is, morality is found in the discovery of the pre-existing moral order. The truth.

Vitus:

The nature of HIV and it’s effect on the immune system leaves HIV infected individuals more suseptable to many kinds of diseases. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. And precautions can be taken to reduce abrasions in any kind of sexual act. (trying to keep it as clean as possible here).

Let’s not dance around the issue here. HIV is spread much more easily by homosexual contact than by heterosexual (vaginal) contact, particularly as the rectum is easily torn and provides an otherwise fertile ground for the disease to germinate and flourish. To that extent, while it is not a “homosexual disease” per se, it is a homosexual disease in that such behavior provides the surest method of spreading the disease. From a purely social point of view, this is reason enough to ban sodomy. But I would not rest my arguments on purely medical safety grounds, as per my prior posts.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

The Barrister:

HIV is spread much more easily by homosexual contact than by heterosexual (vaginal) contact, particularly as the rectum is easily torn and provides an otherwise fertile ground for the disease to germinate and flourish. To that extent, while it is not a “homosexual disease” per se, it is a homosexual disease in that such behavior provides the surest method of spreading the disease. From a purely social point of view, this is reason enough to ban sodomy. But I would not rest my arguments on purely medical safety grounds, as per my prior posts.

Surely the most you could mean here is that this is a reason to ban anal intercourse. The word “sodomy” (at least in its fuller, more classical sense) would also encompass fellatio and woman-woman relations. This latter class of relations is especially unlikely to spread HIV (even less likely than heterosexual intercourse). As such, there is a real limit to medical arugment for legal restrictions on sodomy.

 

[Southernrich]

The Barrister:

Contrary to the modern approach to make morality whatever one determines it is, morality is found in the discovery of the pre-existing moral order. The truth.

I believe that homosexual practices are immoral and constitute mortal sins. But, I see no reason to criminalize such practices.

And I salute the Supremes for decriminalizing it as they did.

We can still preach against it, encourage homosexuals to remain chaste, and show our disapproval of the lifestyle. But, we can’t lock them up for it, and IMO, that’s to the good.

 

[fix]

GrzeszDeL:

Surely the most you could mean here is that this is a reason to ban anal intercourse. The word “sodomy” (at least in its fuller, more classical sense) would also encompass fellatio and woman-woman relations. This latter class of relations is especially unlikely to spread HIV (even less likely than heterosexual intercourse). As such, there is a real limit to medical arugment for legal restrictions on sodomy.

The medical argument is a side argument. I brought it up originally to point out that making sodomy a criminal offense could be defended on several grounds, public hygiene being one ground.

Those that favor sodomy try to spin the argument by saying the public health is not at risk. It is at risk to some degree, but that is not the only argument for criminalizing such perverse acts.

 

[fix]

Southernrich:

I believe that homosexual practices are immoral and constitute mortal sins. But, I see no reason to criminalize such practices.

And I salute the Supremes for decriminalizing it as they did.

We can still preach against it, encourage homosexuals to remain chaste, and show our disapproval of the lifestyle. But, we can’t lock them up for it, and IMO, that’s to the good.

So you believe in compartmentalizing your faith? Legalizing such a terrible vice lends more than legitimacy to it. It makes it seem acceptable and normal to society. I assume you think abortion should be legal and we should only preach against it in our churches?

 

[The_Barrister]

fix:

So you believe in compartmentalizing your faith? Legalizing such a terrible vice lends more than legitimacy to it. It makes it seem acceptable and normal to society. I assume you think abortion should be legal and we should only preach against it in our churches?

Precisely.

And we can add all other forms of murder, robbery, drug use, prostitution. SR’s moral/criminal dichotomy is not the slippery slope - it’s the bottom of the mountain.

 

[Southernrich]

fix:

So you believe in compartmentalizing your faith?

No.

Legalizing such a terrible vice lends more than legitimacy to it.

Not legalizing it, decriminalizing it.

I assume you think abortion should be legal and we should only preach against it in our churches?

You assume wrong. There’s a difference between abortion, which is murder, and oral or anal sex, which aren’t.

You can argue the issue all you like, but I assure you that homosexual practices, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, will never be re-criminalized in America.

 

[The_Barrister]

Southernrich:

You can argue the issue all you like, but I assure you that homosexual practices, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, will never be re-criminalized in America.

You appear to take great joy in that “fact.” Sad, really.

 

[Brad]

Southernrich:

You can argue the issue all you like, but I assure you that homosexual practices, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, will never be re-criminalized in America.

The Supreme Court is paid for by the people and works for the people. Let me assure you one thing about the “Supreme” Court - they are not.