Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
The legal definition of sodomy is what that particular peice of legislation defines it to be.
Do not look at websters; do not look at dictionary.com. Look directly at the statute in question. That, and only that, is what sodomy means when determining what the particular law does or does not allow.
Do not look at websters; do not look at dictionary.com. Look directly at the statute in question. That, and only that, is what sodomy means when determining what the particular law does or does not allow.
Sodomy = what people did in Sodom. Christians interpret this to be sexual perversion (oral, anal, homo, etc) , but Jews interpret this story as against greed.
I read an interesting theory that tries to describe how homosexuality evolved from something commonplace in Roman, Greek, and Egyptian civilization, to something forbidden. In antiquity, it was common for losers of war (particularly leaders, kings, etc) to be homosexually raped as a sign of subjugation and contempt. Thus, the Hebrews may have come to associate male homosexuality with debasement. Moreover, in a strongly partricarchal culture, male homosexuality would be associated with effeminacy, and since women have less status than men, it is futher debasement (the same analysis explains why we don't see women or blacks who dress as white men as negative or hard to understand, but we see men who dress as women or as lower classes as debasing or strange). Overtime, these two factors would make homosexuality a taboo.
Thus, what once wouldn't bat an egyptian, greek, or roman eye turned into the ultimate taboo once the Abrahamic religions displaced the pagan.
I read an interesting theory that tries to describe how homosexuality evolved from something commonplace in Roman, Greek, and Egyptian civilization, to something forbidden. In antiquity, it was common for losers of war (particularly leaders, kings, etc) to be homosexually raped as a sign of subjugation and contempt. Thus, the Hebrews may have come to associate male homosexuality with debasement. Moreover, in a strongly partricarchal culture, male homosexuality would be associated with effeminacy, and since women have less status than men, it is futher debasement (the same analysis explains why we don't see women or blacks who dress as white men as negative or hard to understand, but we see men who dress as women or as lower classes as debasing or strange). Overtime, these two factors would make homosexuality a taboo.
Thus, what once wouldn't bat an egyptian, greek, or roman eye turned into the ultimate taboo once the Abrahamic religions displaced the pagan.
The arguments Scalia makes against the ruling could have been made in exactly the same terms about "miscegnation."
Just because a right isn't explicitly outlined in the Constitution doesn't mean the people don't have. In fact, it says that right there in the Bill of Rights. Yes, "privacy" is a new right, but it's a good one to have.
Just because a right isn't explicitly outlined in the Constitution doesn't mean the people don't have. In fact, it says that right there in the Bill of Rights. Yes, "privacy" is a new right, but it's a good one to have.
I believe in the right to privacy when it comes to your own property. (e.g. government can't spy on you in your own home, etc) However, I do not believe you have a "general" right to privacy everywhere.
For example, if I drive my car to a public park and set up a webcam, and you come to that park, you do not have a right not to be video taped by me. If I run facial recognition software on a website that allows you to look at logs and see the people who visited the park that day, you also do not have the right to stop me.
In general, any information I collect walking about in public is mine, and if I want to say to someone else "hey, I saw Joe Blow at the park today", you do not have a right to keep that private.
Moreover, if I sell you something on ebay, and unless we had a specific contract not to disclose our transactions, I view it within my right to transmit that information to others. That is, your financial transactions are private with me only if we agreed they were private. The government cannot "ban" my right to collect and store information based on our transactions together.
Your right to privacy ends the moment you start talking to me. I have no right to snoop on you in your bedroom, or crack into your private files.
For example, if I drive my car to a public park and set up a webcam, and you come to that park, you do not have a right not to be video taped by me. If I run facial recognition software on a website that allows you to look at logs and see the people who visited the park that day, you also do not have the right to stop me.
In general, any information I collect walking about in public is mine, and if I want to say to someone else "hey, I saw Joe Blow at the park today", you do not have a right to keep that private.
Moreover, if I sell you something on ebay, and unless we had a specific contract not to disclose our transactions, I view it within my right to transmit that information to others. That is, your financial transactions are private with me only if we agreed they were private. The government cannot "ban" my right to collect and store information based on our transactions together.
Your right to privacy ends the moment you start talking to me. I have no right to snoop on you in your bedroom, or crack into your private files.
Willmeister
Newcomer
The main reason for the Jewish stance on male sodomy centers around it's uncleanliness and possible fatal results.
Sorry, but anal sex takes the 'nasty' cake for me.
At least for me, nothing but bad things come out of that hole. God knows why I'd want to put anything in one.
At least for me, nothing but bad things come out of that hole. God knows why I'd want to put anything in one.
RussSchultz said:
1. If you are bleeding from there you are going to need an operation and things will be placed up there wheather you like it or not.
2. If you need to insert cream up there if you have any troubles.
3. Doctors have this camera they place up there to get to your stomach or something if you are having certain problems. I forgot the entire deal with this but it was on the news.
Hi Russ,
Regarding the topic: Even though I don't visit the US too often, I think it's a good thing this law has been overruled. It's not only nice for homosexuals, but IMO an important step into the direction of personal freedom. "Legal sodomy" is not only applicable to queers, after all. Some might call me a libertarian, but as far as I'm concerned everything goes, sexually wise, that complies to the rule of the three S:
- Safe
- Sane
- conSensual
I find it quite funny that states feel the need to cling to ages old ideas of what has to be considered "safe" or "sane" and I'm always glad if such notions are reformed and modernised.
93,
-Sascha.rb
Welcome to the wonderful world of the prostate gland.RussSchultz said:
Regarding the topic: Even though I don't visit the US too often, I think it's a good thing this law has been overruled. It's not only nice for homosexuals, but IMO an important step into the direction of personal freedom. "Legal sodomy" is not only applicable to queers, after all. Some might call me a libertarian, but as far as I'm concerned everything goes, sexually wise, that complies to the rule of the three S:
- Safe
- Sane
- conSensual
I find it quite funny that states feel the need to cling to ages old ideas of what has to be considered "safe" or "sane" and I'm always glad if such notions are reformed and modernised.
93,
-Sascha.rb
video cameras are shrinking down to nothing. Soon they will be ubiquitous. Hell, I'd like a personal tivo that could record everything I see during the day. In any case, I expect in 20 years, a pair of glasses could have a video screen and camera in them and look like regular glasses. Already my cellphone takes nice 640x480 shots.
Thus, the expectation in the future is that you are being taped unless otherwise told. No way around it. It won't just be government or business, everyone on the street will be photographing you. Better get used to it.
Thus, the expectation in the future is that you are being taped unless otherwise told. No way around it. It won't just be government or business, everyone on the street will be photographing you. Better get used to it.
DemoCoder said:
The problem as I see it with all of this historical revisionism is that sex is primarily a biological matter having to do with propagation of the species. Sex is also biologically functional, as a look at any eighth-grade level anatomical chart between the sexes depicts. That is, hetereosexuality has a purpose in nature quite apart from and distinct from pleasure--if it did not--none of us would be here...
This is not to imply that pleasure does not drive hetereosexuality, just that it has a purpose which greatly transcends whatever pleasure is involved--a biological purpose absolute in its necessity so as to ensure the survival of the species. It was widely understood thousands of years ago that children did not originate from anything other than heteroesexual activity. Hence, other sexual practices were considered deviant primarily for that reason. As well, regardless of social mores, and primarily for this reason, homosexuality has always been practiced as a deviant behavior. Indeed, it is often speculated that the decline of every western civilization on which we have such data indicates a corruption not caused by--but typically characterized by--a rise in homosexual practice. The Roman Empire is often cited as such an example. It wasn't that homosexuality caused the corruption of an empire that otherwise would never have fallen from the application of external force, but rather that a rise in homosexual practice within merely typified the rest of the internal corruption which destroyed it. It is not social opinion which drives heterosexuality and never has been--it is biology. To this extent homosexuality disagrees most with biology, as opposed to ideas that it is primarily a preference based on elective mores in any given society.
Heterosexuality was by far the dominant sexual practice among humans long before we got religion (obviously.) Therefore, religion simply reinforces what was already the natural biological order of things which had been established for millennia (otherwise, again, few of us would be here today.) I mean, it's obvious that prehistoric heterosexuality had to have been the social norm before history began being recorded, isn't it? (Otherwise, who would have been alive to record it? Et al.) Therefore, I think the chief argument for heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality is a biological one.
(Just my two cents on what I know is a controversial issue for some.)
Problem with the biological imperative theory is that humans do not mate because they want to produce children (yes, couples can "try" to have a child, but that is 0.0001% of the reason behind the majority of sex acts occuring). People have sex because it FEELS GOOD, not for some abstract reason (hey, we need to copulate so we can reproduce). Your theory would cancel out masturbation as well as homosexuality.
Sex doesn't have a purpose, because nature doesn't have a purpose, nor does evolution. It just is. Our genes are programmed to give us to the drive to propagate, but often something which produces one effect, produces many effects. A side effect of our sex drive is that we do more than just have sex when we need to spread our genes. We have sex all the time. We think about sex alot. We masturbate. We consume sexual images. We engage in "deviant" practices. We indulge in mind altering substances, and in general, we do many things to satisfy our urges. Sex can even become an addiction.
And frankly, with six billion people on the planet, and modern biotechnology, I don't think we need to worry about massive depopulation caused by homosexuality anytime soon. A far greater menace is rich heterosexuals in western nations delaying child birth into their mid 30s, and then only having 1-2 children.
Sex doesn't have a purpose, because nature doesn't have a purpose, nor does evolution. It just is. Our genes are programmed to give us to the drive to propagate, but often something which produces one effect, produces many effects. A side effect of our sex drive is that we do more than just have sex when we need to spread our genes. We have sex all the time. We think about sex alot. We masturbate. We consume sexual images. We engage in "deviant" practices. We indulge in mind altering substances, and in general, we do many things to satisfy our urges. Sex can even become an addiction.
And frankly, with six billion people on the planet, and modern biotechnology, I don't think we need to worry about massive depopulation caused by homosexuality anytime soon. A far greater menace is rich heterosexuals in western nations delaying child birth into their mid 30s, and then only having 1-2 children.
And why does sex feel good? Because it's designed to, what with all the mass of nerve endings and whatnot around the genital areas. Whatever the animal - human or otherwise - they like doing things which feel good and this is why animals have evolved in such a way that the reproductive act feels good. Perhaps, millions of years ago, many species died out because the reproductive act didn't give any pleasure, so they simply didn't bother?
In fact, maybe we've found out the real reason why dinosaurs became extinct - no "pleasure centres" during sex and no sex therapy available during the Jurassic period!