Sodomy Law

[fix]

Grossly uneven enforcement of a law is unjust and that’s probably what would happen.

We had anti sodomy laws for years. They served us well. We have uneven enforcement of many laws right now that is the nature of the law and society.

 

[fpt]

We had anti sodomy laws for years. They served us well. We have uneven enforcement of many laws right now that is the nature of the law and society.

Could you define sodomy laws? What are the behaviors that are criminalized, under what circumtances?In private?? in public??? etc…;???

In your speech, it seems to me that you have a** nostalgic view of the past times, by principles. As if the past was better than now concerning the the penal laws of State of private behaviors in the bedroom, at home. **

You seem to refuse to discern, in the details, those laws that are coming from the protestantism. Yes, in the USA, in general, those penal laws are coming from protestant culture and from his friends, largo sensu, not from the catholicism. The work of the purification of social morality and of the social legitimacy of the penal law about sexual acts between consenting persons in the private place has to be done, by each catholic lay person. It is a moral obligation.

The sphere of the morality, the sphere of the civil laws of State and the sphere of the penal laws of State???

I do not understand your **catholic logic **about the roles and the functions of the penal laws of State about the private sexual acts, between consenting adults of the same sex. Could you explain to me??? I do not want the protestant logic.

And you, what do you want to criminalize? What behaviors? Even in the private bedroom, as in Muslim Nations??? Are you truly serious?

 

[fix]

Could you define sodomy laws? What are the behaviors that are criminalized, under what circumtances?In private?? in public??? etc…;???

In your speech, it seems to me that you have a** nostalgic view of the past times, by principles. As if the past was better than now concerning the the penal laws of State of private behaviors in the bedroom, at home. **

You seem to refuse to discern, in the details, those laws that are coming from the protestantism. Yes, in the USA, in general, those penal laws are coming from protestant culture and from his friends, largo sensu, not from the catholicism. The work of the purification of social morality and of the social legitimacy of the penal law about sexual acts between consenting persons in the private place has to be done, by each catholic lay person. It is a moral obligation.

The sphere of the morality, the sphere of the civil laws of State and the sphere of the penal laws of State???

I do not understand your **catholic logic **about the roles and the functions of the penal laws of State about the private sexual acts, between consenting adults of the same sex. Could you explain to me??? I do not want the protestant logic.

And you, what do you want to criminalize? What behaviors? Even in the private bedroom, as in Muslim Nations??? Are you truly serious?

Up until a few years ago many states had sodomy laws. If you want the particulars I am sure google can be of use.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Wow, interesting discussion.

Whether or not one thinks of sodomy, oral sex or any other action as immoral, I’m not sure that necessarily translates to its being made illegal.

Firstly, I’m not sure how a state could possible police such a law. Would it involve spying on people’s bedrooms, gossiping by neighbours, etc.? Where would you get the evidence to convict anyone?

Secondly, I’m not sure there are justifiable reasons for prohibiting such action legally in a Western democracy. Sure, one might argue that it corrupts a society’s morals (dubious though I think that argument is). Nevertheless, so does lying and lustful thoughts, perhaps even more so. Should those be made illegal too?

I think in a democratic nation, especially one based on civil liberties, legal toleration of certain immoral actions must be the case or else it will be difficult to avoid totalitarianism of some form or other.

God bless.

Jonathan

 

[devoutchristian]

legal toleration of certain immoral actions must be the case or else it will be difficult to avoid totalitarianism of some form or other.

Nonsense. Do you really think that Texas was spent all but the last ten years of it’s existence as a totalitarian state?

 

[fix]

Nonsense. Do you really think that Texas was spent all but the last ten years of it’s existence as a totalitarian state?

Exactly.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

We had anti sodomy laws for years. They served us well. We have uneven enforcement of many laws right now that is the nature of the law and society.

Putting in a law that you know is going to be enforced extremely unevenly and disproportionately target one set of the law breaks who are in fact a minority of the law breakers seems unjust as you know “justice” wont be applied justly.

 

[fix]

Putting in a law that you know is going to be enforced extremely unevenly and disproportionately target one set of the law breaks who are in fact a minority of the law breakers seems unjust as you know “justice” wont be applied justly.

You can assert that against laws right now. How laws are enforced will vary from place to place and time to time. I do not see that as unjust at all. Must every law be unforced with the exact same rate? Traffic laws sure are not enforced that way as one example.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You can assert that against laws right now. How laws are enforced will vary from place to place and time to time. I do not see that as unjust at all. Must every law be unforced with the exact same rate? Traffic laws sure are not enforced that way as one example.

I would have a problem with specifically targeting black drivers.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Nonsense. Do you really think that Texas was spent all but the last ten years of it’s existence as a totalitarian state?

What I mean, Devout Christian, is that to enforce a law which, by the very nature of the crime, will invade one’s privacy, must lead to some kind of police state. Sure, you could have such a law in your legal code but there is no just or honest or respectful (courteous) means of catching those who are guilty of it. Traffic offences are public events, witnessed by others and certainly not private or sexual in nature. To effectively police sodomy, the state would have to either have cameras installed in people’s houses, encourage neighbourly gossips and spies, or else trust in the betrayal (of trust) of family members, friends or lovers.

 

[fix]

What I mean, Devout Christian, is that to enforce a law which, by the very nature of the crime, will invade one’s privacy, must lead to some kind of police state. Sure, you could have such a law in your legal code but there is no just or honest or respectful (courteous) means of catching those who are guilty of it. Traffic offences are public events, witnessed by others and certainly not private or sexual in nature. To effectively police sodomy, the state would have to either have cameras installed in people’s houses, encourage neighbourly gossips and spies, or else trust in the betrayal (of trust) of family members, friends or lovers.

We have laws against drug use. People use drugs in their bedrooms. Has there been a police state so far?

 

[fix]

I would have a problem with specifically targeting black drivers.

That would be wrong as skin color is not behavior.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That would be wrong as skin color is not behavior.

Well they would only be prosecuting those who were speeding so they aren’t prosecuting based on race, merely targeting them to check.

Homosexuals commit sodomy, heterosexuals commit sodomy, homosexuals do it more, but as there are far more heterosexuals the result is that the number of acts of sodomy committed by heterosexuals probably is greater than the number by homosexuals.

 

[jonathan_hili]

We have laws against drug use. People use drugs in their bedrooms. Has there been a police state so far?

Haha come on, Fix, you know the point I was making wasn’t that you can’t criminalise something that can be potentially committed in a bedroom - I mean, someone can be stabbed to death in his bed! - but rather that it is overly restrictive to a person’s privacy, dignity and liberty to have the state intrude in his or her bedroom since sodomy is a practice that is committed principally and almost solely in the bedroom and/or the privacy of one’s house.

Moreover, drug use - if you want to use that counter example - has clear physical effects and is frequently a public phenomenon (e.g. drugs are sold and bought publicly, taken publicly, contribute clearly to public incidents, such as road accidents, etc.). Sodomy cannot be compared on these levels. And again, to restate the point, sodomy is inherently a sexual act and to invade someone’s sexual life in this way (i.e. invasive political and police involvement) is an affront to his or her dignity.

I’m not saying that sodomy is right - I believe it is not - but when legislating against it, there needs to be a balance against what goods are lost. It is not like abortion, where an innocent human person is killed; sodomy is essentially a private issue (and if it does affect the community, it is only in a minor way).

 

[fix]

Well they would only be prosecuting those who were speeding so they aren’t prosecuting based on race, merely targeting them to check.

Homosexuals commit sodomy, heterosexuals commit sodomy, homosexuals do it more, but as there are far more heterosexuals the result is that the number of acts of sodomy committed by heterosexuals probably is greater than the number by homosexuals.

Which is a greater threat to public morals? I am not advocating selective prosecution only to re-establish what was lost by the Supreme Court ruling that ushered in all the nonsense we have today.

 

[fix]

Haha come on, Fix, you know the point I was making wasn’t that you can’t criminalise something that can be potentially committed in a bedroom - I mean, someone can be stabbed to death in his bed! - but rather that it is overly restrictive to a person’s privacy, dignity and liberty to have the state intrude in his or her bedroom since sodomy is a practice that is committed principally and almost solely in the bedroom and/or the privacy of one’s house.

Moreover, drug use - if you want to use that counter example - has clear physical effects and is frequently a public phenomenon (e.g. drugs are sold and bought publicly, taken publicly, contribute clearly to public incidents, such as road accidents, etc.). Sodomy cannot be compared on these levels. And again, to restate the point, sodomy is inherently a sexual act and to invade someone’s sexual life in this way (i.e. invasive political and police involvement) is an affront to his or her dignity.

I’m not saying that sodomy is right - I believe it is not - but when legislating against it, there needs to be a balance against what goods are lost. It is not like abortion, where an innocent human person is killed; sodomy is essentially a private issue (and if it does affect the community, it is only in a minor way).

My point is in the USA we lived with sodomy laws for decades and decades. No police state.

 

[The_Bucket]

My point is in the USA we lived with sodomy laws for decades and decades. No police state.

When were they enforced? Almost never. The only reason they were enforced was to unfairly prosecute homosexuals or when a neighbor wanted his pesky couple shacking up next door to be discovered.

As has been said before, it’s a moot point but the idea that there should be some kind of civil punishment for sodomy is quite insane. Why not just lock people up for masturbation while we’re at it? It’s all grave matter. So just toss everyone who has masturbated in jail too or hand down a civil penalty. 95% of men and a huge percentage of women as well will be either broke, in jail or both.

 

[fix]

When were they enforced? Almost never. The only reason they were enforced was to unfairly prosecute homosexuals or when a neighbor wanted his pesky couple shacking up next door to be discovered.

As has been said before, it’s a moot point but the idea that there should be some kind of civil punishment for sodomy is quite insane. Why not just lock people up for masturbation while we’re at it? It’s all grave matter. So just toss everyone who has masturbated in jail too or hand down a civil penalty. 95% of men and a huge percentage of women as well will be either broke, in jail or both.

The laws served a purpose. Any law can be misused that is not evidence we should abolish a just law. The law is a teacher. Masturbation has not been illegal that I know of. We can visit that debate once you show anti sodomy laws are harmful to society?

 

[The_Bucket]

The laws served a purpose. Any law can be misused that is not evidence we should abolish a just law. The law is a teacher. Masturbation has not been illegal that I know of. We can visit that debate once you show anti sodomy laws are harmful to society?

Anti-sodomy laws are harmful for a myriad of reasons:

A) They are extremely difficult to enforce and thus are prone to abuse by law enforcement. Basically, police will only arrest people on this charge whom they wish to arrest. They could just arrest a couple of people who are clearly homosexual on “suspicion of sodomy.”

B) Prosecuting such an offense would require an extreme invasion of privacy. How can anyone know if someone commits this crime? You’d have to have a witness or cameras set up in someone’s house. The latter is an abuse by the government. If there’s a witness then you can just bust someone for existing crimes like lewd conduct for having sex in public.

C) Successful prosecution is a near impossibility. How can you know if the act is completed? Oral stimulation is not immoral in Catholicism or any other religion I can think of. I’m not going to open up the other debate but suffice to say that the Church is silent on the matter except to proscribe how sexual acts must end. So in the case of heterosexuals, you’d have to prove that the acts were completed. The only way to do that is through another gross invasion of privacy.

D) The “public morality” is not for the government to protect except in extreme cases where abuse rampant such as prostitution and illicit drugs. The government regulates things like pornography, controlled substances, alcohol and strip clubs; it does not ban them.

E) The “public morality” changes frequently. Ten years ago everyone was against same-sex marriage. Today it’s 50/50. Anti-sodomy laws set a dangerous precedent whereby the government has an extreme amount of control over the private sphere. Outlawing such acts could lead to the government then justifying banning things like excessively protesting against gay marriage or abortion. After all, protesting involves more than mere words or assembly. It includes action.

F) And the big one: Anti-sodomy laws are unjust because sodomy is not prohibited in many other religions. Why should the government be the arbiter over which sexual acts are allowed and which are not?

 

[fix]

Anti-sodomy laws are harmful for a myriad of reasons:

A) They are extremely difficult to enforce and thus are prone to abuse by law enforcement. Basically, police will only arrest people on this charge whom they wish to arrest. They could just arrest a couple of people who are clearly homosexual on “suspicion of sodomy.”

B) Prosecuting such an offense would require an extreme invasion of privacy. How can anyone know if someone commits this crime? You’d have to have a witness or cameras set up in someone’s house. The latter is an abuse by the government. If there’s a witness then you can just bust someone for existing crimes like lewd conduct for having sex in public.

C) Successful prosecution is a near impossibility. How can you know if the act is completed? Oral stimulation is not immoral in Catholicism or any other religion I can think of. I’m not going to open up the other debate but suffice to say that the Church is silent on the matter except to proscribe how sexual acts must end. So in the case of heterosexuals, you’d have to prove that the acts were completed. The only way to do that is through another gross invasion of privacy.

D) The “public morality” is not for the government to protect except in extreme cases where abuse rampant such as prostitution and illicit drugs. The government regulates things like pornography, controlled substances, alcohol and strip clubs; it does not ban them.

E) The “public morality” changes frequently. Ten years ago everyone was against same-sex marriage. Today it’s 50/50. Anti-sodomy laws set a dangerous precedent whereby the government has an extreme amount of control over the private sphere. Outlawing such acts could lead to the government then justifying banning things like excessively protesting against gay marriage or abortion. After all, protesting involves more than mere words or assembly. It includes action.

F) And the big one: Anti-sodomy laws are unjust because sodomy is not prohibited in many other religions. Why should the government be the arbiter over which sexual acts are allowed and which are not?

Together with a predictable collection of gay rights organizations and groups like the ACLU, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the People for the American Way Foundation, these include such worthies as the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, III, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International U.S.A., and, strange to say, the AFL-CIO. May one ask what freedom of sodomy has to do with workers’ rights?

There is, in any event, nothing far-fetched in seeing a link between overturning laws against sodomy and securing legal recognition of gay marriage. A bit of history illustrates that.

Anti-Sodomy Laws