Sodomy Law

[The_Bucket]

So your retort is that anti-sodomy laws opened the door to gay marriage? Really? That hardly addresses my argument.

All you’re saying is that we should have one set of unjust laws in place in order to prevent society from being A-OK with something else that is indeed quite morally wrong. That’s ridiculous.

Both the Griswold and Lawrence cases were correctly decided. Just because the SCOTUS then used the same logic in Griswold and stretched it beyond the point of rationality to make its decision in Roe does not mean that Griswold was wrong.

There is indeed a right to privacy. It’s spelled out in the bill of rights that prevent unlawful searches and seizures as well as banning the quartering of soldiers. If that does not lay down a precedent for a certain level of privacy, I don’t know what does. But the right to privacy in one’s own home and to do whatever the heck he or she wants to do sexually without civil punishment (provided that everything is consensual) does not mean that we should then approve of abortion. Abortion and sexual acts have nothing to do with one another. One involves the killing of an unborn child. The other does not. There’s a logical disconnect there.

I have great sorrow that the logic of Griswold was twisted to create Roe, but I’m not going to argue that the idea that we have privacy rights is wrong. I’m simply going to say “the right to privacy does not extend to the right to kill an unborn child.”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided the right way for the wrong reasons, it should have been struck down for separate, but equal criminalization, if sodomy is illegal it should be illegal for all, not just a specific class of people.

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

Just ask the NAACP how great the 1950s were for all Americans.

 

[fpt]

So your retort is that anti-sodomy laws opened the door to gay marriage? Really? That hardly addresses my argument.

All you’re saying is that we should have one set of unjust laws in place in order to prevent society from being A-OK with something else that is indeed quite morally wrong. That’s ridiculous.

Both the Griswold and Lawrence cases were correctly decided. Just because the SCOTUS then used the same logic in Griswold and stretched it beyond the point of rationality to make its decision in Roe does not mean that Griswold was wrong.

There is indeed a right to privacy. It’s spelled out in the bill of rights that prevent unlawful searches and seizures as well as banning the quartering of soldiers. If that does not lay down a precedent for a certain level of privacy, I don’t know what does. But the right to privacy in one’s own home and to do whatever the heck he or she wants to do sexually without civil punishment (provided that everything is consensual) does not mean that we should then approve of abortion. Abortion and sexual acts have nothing to do with one another. One involves the killing of an unborn child. The other does not. There’s a logical disconnect there.

I have great sorrow that the logic of Griswold was twisted to create Roe, but I’m not going to argue that the idea that we have privacy rights is wrong. I’m simply going to say “the right to privacy does not extend to the right to kill an unborn child.”

Do you know the catholic moral position of Ronald Conte Jr about these topics making focus on the social justice of State ( penal laws and civil laws) concerning the immoral sexual acts, between consenting adults in the private place, at home, in the bedroom of motel or in the bedroom of hostel…etc? In private with the agreement of each persons.

Do you have an idea? I would like to know his intellectual approach on this particular topic?

What may i imagine???

 

[fix]

So your retort is that anti-sodomy laws opened the door to gay marriage? Really? That hardly addresses my argument.

I think it is an important aspect.

All you’re saying is that we should have one set of unjust laws in place in order to prevent society from being A-OK with something else that is indeed quite morally wrong. That’s ridiculous.

I am saying the laws are not unjust. They are only “unjust” to our relativistic culture.

Both the Griswold and Lawrence cases were correctly decided. Just because the SCOTUS then used the same logic in Griswold and stretched it beyond the point of rationality to make its decision in Roe does not mean that Griswold was wrong.

That is your opnion.

There is indeed a right to privacy. It’s spelled out in the bill of rights that prevent unlawful searches and seizures as well as banning the quartering of soldiers. If that does not lay down a precedent for a certain level of privacy, I don’t know what does. But the right to privacy in one’s own home and to do whatever the heck he or she wants to do sexually without civil punishment (provided that everything is consensual) does not mean that we should then approve of abortion. Abortion and sexual acts have nothing to do with one another. One involves the killing of an unborn child. The other does not. There’s a logical disconnect there.

There is no right to immoral act. Any law, correctly written, that would proscribe those acts is not unjust.

I have great sorrow that the logic of Griswold was twisted to create Roe, but I’m not going to argue that the idea that we have privacy rights is wrong. I’m simply going to say “the right to privacy does not extend to the right to kill an unborn child.”

Ok, but anti sodomy laws are not unjust per se.

 

[fix]

Lawrence v. Texas was decided the right way for the wrong reasons, it should have been struck down for separate, but equal criminalization, if sodomy is illegal it should be illegal for all, not just a specific class of people.

I am fine with that.

Just ask the NAACP how great the 1950s were for all Americans.

What does skin color have to do with deviant acts?

 

[The_Bucket]

There is no right to immoral act. Any law, correctly written, that would proscribe those acts is not unjust.

That is absolutely not true. It’s called free will. We absolutely and unequivocally have the right to commit immoral actions. We should not commit them but we should also not be stripped of the civil right to commit them.

And you never really addressed my point. There is clearly a right to privacy in the Constitution. Unlawful searches and seizures are explicitly barred. Quartering of soldiers is explicitly barred. The tenth amendment provides that other rights not proscribed in the Bill of Rights are reserved to the states and the people. I think privacy falls under that. So even in a narrow reading of the constitution we have a right to privacy. I don’t see how privacy rights extends to killing an unborn child but it certainly extends to private sexual acts between consenting adults.

If there is no right to privacy, are you or are you not in favor of criminal/civil laws against masturbation? Masturbation is disordered and it constitutes grave matter. Grave matter is grave matter. It makes no difference if it is masturbation or homosexual acts. So should we start locking up or fining people for masturbating? After all, that’s a disordered/deviant act and it corrupts the “public morality.”

 

[epan]

That would be wrong as skin color is not behavior.

It is well known and accepted in legal circles that sodomy and lewdness laws have been applied differently, according to sexual orientation. The cases of married men being prosecuted for engaging in oral sex with their wives is miniscule, even though estranged wives have filed complaints.

Even today, a heterosexual couple caught being intimate in a public place will generally be given a warning. Worst case is a plea bargain for a minor offense, which lacks social stigma. But that is rare. Normally, charges if any, are dismissed. In the case of a same sex couple, the same laws are applied differently. The offer is generally lewd conduct, which is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. If the plea bargain is rejected, then the stakes are raised to indecent exposure, which is a registered sex offense.

The argument that laws are enforced evenly and without prejudice, for the same offense, but for different classes of people, is simply false, in many places. Sad but true.

A family member litigates such issues, and was required to humiliate the City Attorney in a major city on such issues. The jury ended up scolding the attorney. The judge dismissed all action against the remaining defendants in a large case. The City Attorney lost re-election due to the publicity. So, with proper representation, such behavior by prosecutors and police maybe stopped. But most defendants do not want a public legal battle, and they roll over for the unfair plea bargain

 

[fix]

That is absolutely not true. It’s called free will. We absolutely and unequivocally have the right to commit immoral actions. We should not commit them but we should also not be stripped of the civil right to commit them.

You have no such right. It is a crime against nature.

And you never really addressed my point. There is clearly a right to privacy in the Constitution. Unlawful searches and seizures are explicitly barred. Quartering of soldiers is explicitly barred. The tenth amendment provides that other rights not proscribed in the Bill of Rights are reserved to the states and the people. I think privacy falls under that. So even in a narrow reading of the constitution we have a right to privacy. I don’t see how privacy rights extends to killing an unborn child but it certainly extends to private sexual acts between consenting adults.

The act can take place in many ares not just homes.

If there is no right to privacy, are you or are you not in favor of criminal/civil laws against masturbation? Masturbation is disordered and it constitutes grave matter. Grave matter is grave matter. It makes no difference if it is masturbation or homosexual acts. So should we start locking up or fining people for masturbating? After all, that’s a disordered/deviant act and it corrupts the “public morality.”

Masturbation is evil, but does not present the same menace to society. As I said we now have “gay” marriage.

 

[fix]

It is well known and accepted in legal circles that sodomy and lewdness laws have been applied differently, according to sexual orientation. The cases of married men being prosecuted for engaging in oral sex with their wives is miniscule, even though estranged wives have filed complaints.

Even today, a heterosexual couple caught being intimate in a public place will generally be given a warning. Worst case is a plea bargain for a minor offense, which lacks social stigma. But that is rare. Normally, charges if any, are dismissed. In the case of a same sex couple, the same laws are applied differently. The offer is generally lewd conduct, which is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. If the plea bargain is rejected, then the stakes are raised to indecent exposure, which is a registered sex offense.

The argument that laws are enforced evenly and without prejudice, for the same offense, but for different classes of people, is simply false, in many places. Sad but true.

A family member litigates such issues, and was required to humiliate the City Attorney in a major city on such issues. The jury ended up scolding the attorney. The judge dismissed all action against the remaining defendants in a large case. The City Attorney lost re-election due to the publicity. So, with proper representation, such behavior by prosecutors and police maybe stopped. But most defendants do not want a public legal battle, and they roll over for the unfair plea bargain

Is the argument that more homosexuals are charged than heterosexuals so that the law is unfair? Or, is the argument that anti sodomy laws are unfair per se?

If the issue is enforcement then that can be addressed.

 

[The_Bucket]

You have no such right. It is a crime against nature.

How so? Homosexual acts are present in nature all the time. Most apes, sea mammals, birds and a number of other species engage in homosexual acts. Those acts are morally neutral because animals, are well… animals. So those acts are natural and have no moral consequence. We human beings are called to rise above our nature and propensity to sin.

I have the civil right to do many immoral things. I can drink to excess in my own domicile. I can be a cutter. I can get excessive tattoos because I physically derive pleasure from the experience. I can be a glutton. Why are you singling out homosexual acts?

The act can take place in many ares not just homes.

By all means arrest or at least cite people for public lewdness. That’s a different crime.

Masturbation is evil, but does not present the same menace to society. As I said we now have “gay” marriage.

Why not? Masturbation is committed by basically everyone and contributes to sexual immaturity. It also feeds the cycle of pornography which I’d argue is an even more insidious evil than civilly recognized gay partnerships. Pornography feeds addictions; both porn addicts and drug addiction since so many of the women in porn are addicts themselves and support their habit with their “acting.” It also opens them up to abuse and physical disease.

Gay marriage and homosexual acts, while quite wrong and not something that will ever get my support, does not lead to those other kinds of evils. I don’t see how gay people are “menacing” society in any way. Their sin is their sin. I daresay adultery is worse than homosexual acts/marriage and there’s nary a cry to criminalize that activity.

And at any rate, this goes way beyond mere homosexuality. You’re singling out sexual acts that are performed by heterosexuals all the time. I don’t know how oral sex is somehow insidious and a menace to society. Probably because it isn’t. Oral sex to completion is morally wrong but it doesn’t impact society really in any way. And oral stimulation without completion isn’t even morally wrong (and can be a mitzvah, if you’ll excuse the Hebrew) when performed within a marital relationship, so why do you care?

 

[epan]

Is the argument that more homosexuals are charged than heterosexuals so that the law is unfair? Or, is the argument that anti sodomy laws are unfair per se?

If the issue is enforcement then that can be addressed.

it is not really an argument, but an observation that unequal protection under the law exists, based on sexual orientation, just as it has in the past, and sometimes still does exist, based on race. fair, just, legal? no. a fact in our society? yes.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

What is the Church’s position on sodomy law? Many states have implemented this law, but it seem inefficient and causes quite much controversy since it goes against the right to privacy. I personally do not believe in this law and do not believe this will cause homosexual acts to diminish.

My guess is that the Church says any sex outside of marriage is a sin. They leave the law-making to the civil authorities.

 

[marymary1975]

 

[devoutchristian]

The Bucket, you’ve already said that you don’t consider sodomy a crime against nature, that contraception should be legal, and that other religions should have a say in public policy. Are there any other Church teachings that you disagree with?

 

[The_Bucket]

The Bucket, you’ve already said that you don’t consider sodomy a crime against nature, that contraception should be legal, and that other religions should have a say in public policy. Are there any other Church teachings that you disagree with?

…

What? Nice charity there pal. Of course other religions should have a say in public policy. Since when has the Church taught otherwise? Barring other religions from having a say in public policy is as absurd as those in the general public saying they should have a say over Church doctrine. Only 25% of America is Catholic and only about 1/7th of the population of the world is Catholic. Why should the Church be the only entity that has a say over public policy? That’s ludicrous.

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and therefore the Church should be very cautious in getting involved in politics. She has a long history of doing so and not much of it has been good. The Church’s involvement in temporal power has resulted in corruption of both the civic authorities and the Church hierarchy.

“Crime against nature” is a ridiculous thing to say and yes, sodomy is only a mortal sin for those who know it is a mortal sin. That’s part of it being mortal. You’ve got to have the knowledge first. My point was that it’s impossible and manifestly unfair to try and enforce sodomy laws at the civic level. I’m not disagreeing with the doctrine about where a man must complete the marital act. I’m noting the impossibility of enforcing such a law properly and fairly.

I’m also noting that it’s crazy to impose the Church’s take on every issue that She says is grave matter on the general populace. What next? Locking up fornicators and adulterers? Tossing people in prison for not keeping the Sabbath holy? Throwing blasphemers into the dungeons as in centuries past? Pretty sure that violates all kind of Constitutional rights here in the U.S. and in numerous other countries.

Contraception should likewise be legal. The pill does have medicinal purposes that make it perfectly acceptable to take, even for married Catholics! I of course concur with the Church that if you’re taking it for its contraceptive qualities, that’s grave matter. Not that it’s your business, but I practice NFP in my own marriage thank you very much and think the rest of the rank and file should do likewise since its, you know, the doctrine!

 

[devoutchristian]

…

What? Nice charity there pal. Of course other religions should have a say in public policy. Since when has the Church taught otherwise? Barring other religions from having a say in public policy is as absurd as those in the general public saying they should have a say over Church doctrine. Only 25% of America is Catholic and only about 1/7th of the population of the world is Catholic. Why should the Church be the only entity that has a say over public policy? That’s ludicrous.

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world and therefore the Church should be very cautious in getting involved in politics. She has a long history of doing so and not much of it has been good. The Church’s involvement in temporal power has resulted in corruption of both the civic authorities and the Church hierarchy.

“Crime against nature” is a ridiculous thing to say and yes, sodomy is only a mortal sin for those who know it is a mortal sin. That’s part of it being mortal. You’ve got to have the knowledge first. My point was that it’s impossible and manifestly unfair to try and enforce sodomy laws at the civic level. I’m not disagreeing with the doctrine about where a man must complete the marital act. I’m noting the impossibility of enforcing such a law properly and fairly.

I’m also noting that it’s crazy to impose the Church’s take on every issue that She says is grave matter on the general populace. What next? Locking up fornicators and adulterers? Tossing people in prison for not keeping the Sabbath holy? Throwing blasphemers into the dungeons as in centuries past? Pretty sure that violates all kind of Constitutional rights here in the U.S. and in numerous other countries.

Contraception should likewise be legal. The pill does have medicinal purposes that make it perfectly acceptable to take, even for married Catholics! I of course concur with the Church that if you’re taking it for its contraceptive qualities, that’s grave matter. Not that it’s your business, but I practice NFP in my own marriage thank you very much and think the rest of the rank and file should do likewise since its, you know, the doctrine!

So your answer is that those are the only Church teachings that you disagree with? Also, the Church has always held that public policy should be guided by the truth, it’s up to you to show that the Church has accepted the heresy of religious pluralism. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI said that contraception should be illegal and the Catechism calls sodomy a “sin that cries out to Heaven”.

 

[doormouse73]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bucket
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.

it had nothing to do with homosexual bashing at all. dont be so blinded by your own ignorance…i am not being rude saying this…

when a rape has occurred,the man or woman who has been raped might testify that they had been sodomised during the rape.now stop and think about that for one minute before you say or do any thing.sodomise…it is immoral to say the least to do such an act on a willing person never mind a person of rape.

rape on its own is despicable but for this act it is diabolical.

or would you put it as a normal position? you sound like you would if it was consensual.

 

[The_Bucket]

So your answer is that those are the only Church teachings that you disagree with? Also, the Church has always held that public policy should be guided by the truth, it’s up to you to show that the Church has accepted the heresy of religious pluralism. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI said that contraception should be illegal and the Catechism calls sodomy a “sin that cries out to Heaven”.

Where am I disagreeing with the doctrine and why the accusatory language? I don’t disagree with the Church over where the marital act must be completed. I don’t disagree that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. I’m an opponent of contraception and understand why it’s a grave evil.

My point is that government should not impose the doctrine on the Church on the people, unless that’s what the people want! If we all chose to be ruled civilly by the Church then by all means, enforce that law. But that’s not what anyone has chosen and when the Church did have temporal power it corrupted both the Church and the civic officials. Blasphemy earned the death penalty. Do we really want to go down that road again? I mean, this is all theoretical because it’s never going to happen, but why can’t we agree that these things were BAD. They were bad for society and bad for the Church. They also fundamentally spat in the face of Christ’s teaching when he stopped the execution of a woman caught in adultery.

This is entirely ludicrous when you consider the Gospel’s teaching. We lock up thieves, rapists, batterers and murderers because they represent a danger to society. A physical danger. We don’t lock up and should not temporally punish people for evils that are entirely spiritual. Christ provided that example for us! People used to suffer temporal punishments of execution or at the least banishment for things like adultery. Christ flipped that practice on its head and told the woman caught in the very act of adultery that he did not condemn her either. At least not there. Whether she repented we do not know.

Aside from all the absurdity involved of trying to make all of the Church’s teachings one with civil law, that’s what boggles my mind the most. Christ Himself refused to carry out temporal punishment for sexual sin. You’d think we’d be wise enough to follow His example. That doesn’t mean we have to condone sexual sin. We should certainly speak out against it. But we should not put the force of civil law behind it because even Christ did not.

And doormouse, yeah sure, I’d call “sodomy” as you define it pretty much standard fare for a ton of people. Most of them don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Many religions, such as basically every Eastern religion, have no prohibition against it. Where does the Church have the right to assert its doctrine with the force of law on those who do not believe in her doctrine? She does not have that right. We all have the free choice to embrace the Truth or reject it. Many also go through life without a full understanding of the Truth despite seeking it nonstop. Why should they be condemned?

 

[devoutchristian]

Where am I disagreeing with the doctrine and why the accusatory language?

Pope Paul VI said that contraception should be illegal, the Catechism says that sodomy is “a sin that cries out to Heaven”, and many popes have condemned religious pluralism.

Blasphemy earned the death penalty. Do we really want to go down that road again?

Do you really think that Malta, Costa Rica and all of the other modern Catholic confessional states are executing blasphemers?

Christ Himself refused to carry out temporal punishment for sexual sin.

He refused to support the death penalty for sex offenders. He said nothing about criminal punishments in general.

 

[fix]

How so? Homosexual acts are present in nature all the time. Most apes, sea mammals, birds and a number of other species engage in homosexual acts. Those acts are morally neutral because animals, are well… animals. So those acts are natural and have no moral consequence. We human beings are called to rise above our nature and propensity to sin.

I have the civil right to do many immoral things. I can drink to excess in my own domicile. I can be a cutter. I can get excessive tattoos because I physically derive pleasure from the experience. I can be a glutton. Why are you singling out homosexual acts?

By all means arrest or at least cite people for public lewdness. That’s a different crime.

Why not? Masturbation is committed by basically everyone and contributes to sexual immaturity. It also feeds the cycle of pornography which I’d argue is an even more insidious evil than civilly recognized gay partnerships. Pornography feeds addictions; both porn addicts and drug addiction since so many of the women in porn are addicts themselves and support their habit with their “acting.” It also opens them up to abuse and physical disease.

Gay marriage and homosexual acts, while quite wrong and not something that will ever get my support, does not lead to those other kinds of evils. I don’t see how gay people are “menacing” society in any way. Their sin is their sin. I daresay adultery is worse than homosexual acts/marriage and there’s nary a cry to criminalize that activity.

And at any rate, this goes way beyond mere homosexuality. You’re singling out sexual acts that are performed by heterosexuals all the time. I don’t know how oral sex is somehow insidious and a menace to society. Probably because it isn’t. Oral sex to completion is morally wrong but it doesn’t impact society really in any way. And oral stimulation without completion isn’t even morally wrong (and can be a mitzvah, if you’ll excuse the Hebrew) when performed within a marital relationship, so why do you care?

If you want to talk about criminalizing other unnatural acts that is fine with me. This thread is about sodomy which was illegal for centuries and should be today.