Consensus Building on the US Sodomy Issue

[Sleeper]

Why did I say sodomy, rather than homosexual marriage, or more precisely, male homosexual sexual activity, which will soon be clear is the issue I am discussing?

Because I want to begin by stressing that it is male homosexual sex which is really the contentious area, although lesbianism plays a key role, lesbian sex is not what is getting our western societies panties in an uproar, nor for that matter, marriage.


Natural or Unnatural

What a silly word unnatural is. If it occurs in the natural world, how is it unnatural. Even the artificial constructions of man are natural, especially now that we are able to tamper on the biological and molecular level.

The better descriptive word for something like sodomy would be, not the specific use the penis and anus were designed for. If you cannot accept that the penis was designed to go into the vagina, most likely in an effort to allow reproduction to occur, do not bother to read on. The anus also, as anyone who has had enough anal sex can confirm, is clearly intended to be an out hole.

Now think about how many things man does with his body that his body was not designed to do. Skydiving is an example, or tattoos. While this approach has much more to be discussed, lets move on to where the issue gets more complicated.


Frequency in Western History

Sodomy has been around the block. Most cultures, including the great western forefathers, Greece and Rome, were ok with male sodomy. Greece, in many forms, institutionalized the practice, though predominately between older men and younger boys. Even the Greeks frowned on sodomy between older men and older men.

The Romans were all about penetrator and penetrated, and only condemned men if they were the one being buggered. Caesar and Augustus both had to deal with moral judgment for being suspected of having been the penetrated as young men.

Sodomy was an accepted practice in the pre Christian west, although it was seen as being unmanly, and condemned if older men were catching.

It is impossible to further discuss this issue without finding out where Sodomy became a practice that is condemned in all forms, which is luckily very easy. The Jews were never OK with sodomy, especially between men, and Christianity is simply an evolved Jewish Messiah culture.


Post Christian Western Views of Sodomy

After the Jewish Messiah Cult of Christianity took hold in the west, so for roughly the last 1700 years minimum, sodomy has been seen as morally repugnant by western culture, up until this very day.

Yes, I said up until this very day. In the US, South America (where there are ways around the moral judgment called trannies), and the Islamic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox worlds, which makes up the great majority of the world's population, male sodomy is judged to be morally incorrect and many times evil. Asia has its own view of sex, but they frown on older men being buggered for the most part as well.

So it is clear that sodomy is an old, yet often frowned upon practice, particularly if older men are catching.


Modern Democracies

I am under the impression that the majority of European countries frown on male sodomy, though many of them, though viewing it as morally repugnant, believe that a different concept is essential to applying laws to it, that concept is civil rights.

The right to not be judged for certain choices or traits is a linchpin of western democracy. So, while I would guess the majority of Brits believe male sodomy to be morally incorrect, that same majority believes that morally judging someone for a consensual sexual act between adults is more morally repugnant. The lesser of two evils one might say.

The US population overwhelming believes male sodomy to be morally incorrect but has not seen fit to accept that civil rights outweighs the morally negatives in concern to male sodomy.


Why is this important?

Homosexual marriage, if approved by the government, is seen by many to in the US to be federal confirmation that sodomy is morally acceptable.

That is total crap. Sadism, a practice I myself am drawn too, and as typical, sodomy as well, is by no means viewed as morally acceptable by the US population, however, no one dares to say that two open sadists cannot be wed, unless of course they are of the same sex.


A Final Note

The real solution to the homosexual marriage problem in the US is not to make homosexual marriage legal, but to come out and say what is already the reality, all unions in the US are civil unions first, while only some of them are marriages, which, because of the last few millennia, is a word that cannot be easily separated from its Judeo-Christian religious meaning in the western world.


Now, please misconstrue everything I have said, twist my words, and put forward broad generalized statements without argument to confirm your own intellectual superiority for yourself and all others who know the elusive truth, something apparently reserved for likely spoiled liberal Atheists. I am possibly a little put off by the actions of some here, and this last paragraph is for them, and them alone. The rest is for those who enjoy thinking for the sake of it.

[Dunecat]

Why did I say sodomy, rather than homosexual marriage, or more precisely, male homosexual sexual activity, which will soon be clear is the issue I am discussing?

Because I want to begin by stressing that it is male homosexual sex which is really the contentious area, although lesbianism plays a key role, lesbian sex is not what is getting our western societies panties in an uproar, nor for that matter, marriage.


Natural or Unnatural

What a silly word unnatural is. If it occurs in the natural world, how is it unnatural. Even the artificial constructions of man are natural, especially now that we are able to tamper on the biological and molecular level.

The better descriptive would for something like sodomy would be, not the specific use the penis and anus were designed for. If you cannot accept that the penis was designed to go into the vagina, most likely in an effort to allow reproduction to occur, do not bother to read on. The anus also, as anyone who has had enough anal sex can confirm, is clearly intended to be an out hole.

This is where the disconnect will be, because most of the scientific community (those that study natural phenomena) believe that it is not that our organs are designed to work with one another so much as they actually do. This is an important distinction to make. Your definition of natural misses the mark on what people actually mean by it- can a human be born homosexual? Is homosexuality found in other species besides humans? "Natural" in the sense of philosophical observation is an equivocation, misleading, and more importantly, grievously erroneous. There ARE many examples in the "animal kingdom" of naturally-occurring homosexual acts, that- in this case- of at least between two males. Often this is done as a sign of dominance (in the case of apes), and is no more exemplified in human culture than in the society of prisoners and convicts.

Now think about how many things man does with his body that his body was not designed to do. Skydiving is an example, or tattoos. While this approach has much more to be discussed, lets move on to where the issue gets more complicated.

Very well. Just like there is no qualms about me sticking my hand inside my partner, I suppose there would be no qualm about tattoos. It is unfortunate the same is not said for "homosexual sex" (Which, btw, I have had with my girlfriend and feels fantastic).

Frequency in Western History

Sodomy has been around the block. Most cultures, including the great western forefathers, Greece and Rome, were ok with male sodomy. Greece, in many forms, institutionalized the practice, though predominately between older men and younger boys. Even the Greeks frowned on sodomy between older men and older men.

The Romans were all about penetrator and penetrated, and only condemned men if they were the one being buggered. Caesar and Augustus both had to deal with moral judgment for being suspected of having been the penetrated as young men.

Sodomy was an accepted practice in the pre Christian west, although it was seen as being unmanly, and condemned if older men were catching.

It is impossible to further discuss this issue without finding out where Sodomy became a practice that is condemned in all forms, which is luckily very easy. The Jews were never OK with sodomy, especially between men, and Christianity is simply an evolved Jewish Messiah culture.

It is important to note when sodomy actually came into play in near-eastern culture, unlike in Greece. Sodomy, and with its purpose rape, had often occurred between gangs of men and unwitting foreigners. This is no more obvious then in the Sodom and Gomorrah tale in the OT.

Post Christian Western Views of Sodomy

After the Jewish Messiah Cult of Christianity took hold in the west, so for roughly the last 1700 years minimum, sodomy has been seen as morally repugnant by western culture, up until this very day.

Not entirely true. You are confusing Victorian-era ethics of the Anglo-speaking world with the rest of reality.

Yes, I said up until this very day. In the US, South America (where there are ways around the moral judgment called trannies), and the Islamic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox worlds, which makes up the great majority of the world's population, male sodomy is judged to be morally incorrect and many times evil. Asia has its own view of sex, but they frown on older men being buggered for the most part as well.

So it is clear that sodomy is an old, yet often frowned upon practice, particularly if older men are catching.

Again to some, to others not. Many cultures actually sodomize ritually.

Modern Democracies

I am under the impression that the majority of European countries frown on male sodomy, though many of them, though viewing it as morally repugnant, believe that a different concept is essential to applying laws to it, that concept is civil rights.

The right to not be judged for certain choices or traits is a linchpin of western democracy. So, while I would guess the majority of Brits believe male sodomy to be morally incorrect, that same majority believes that morally judging someone for a consensual sexual act between adults is more morally repugnant. The lesser of two evils one might say.

The US population overwhelming believes male sodomy to be morally incorrect but has not seen fit to accept that civil rights outweighs the morally negatives in concern to male sodomy.

Where are you drawing these inferences from? I have always read and encountered the opposite, to be sure...

Why is this important?

Homosexual marriage, if approved by the government, is seen by many to in the US to be federal confirmation that sodomy is morally acceptable.

That is total crap. Sadism, a practice I myself am drawn too, and as typical, sodomy as well, is by no means viewed as morally acceptable by the US population, however, no one dares to say that two open sadists cannot be wed, unless of course they are of the same sex.

Consensual sex between two adults is analogous to SADISM!?

A Final Note

The real solution to the homosexual marriage problem in the US is not to make homosexual marriage legal, but to come out and say what is already the reality, all unions in the US are civil unions first, while only some of them are marriages, which, because of the last few millennia, is a word that cannot be easily separated from its Judeo-Christian religious meaning in the western world.

RIGHT. Marriage has been a part of all cultures. What ignorant westo-centric source did you draw your information from? Jews did not invent the sacrament of marriage. Not to mention the fact that religious groups today perform homosexual marriages (which throws your "civil unions" distinction out the window, not only for it being grossly discriminatory).

Now, please misconstrue everything I have said, twist my words, and put forward broad generalized statements without argument to confirm your own intellectual superiority for yourself and all others who know the elusive truth, something apparently reserved for likely spoiled liberal Atheists. I am possibly a little put off by the actions of some here, and this last paragraph is for them, and them alone. The rest is for those who enjoy thinking for the sake of it.

I will ignore the fact that you see liberalism- the value of LIBERTY- as a moral evil. That you view those who do not follow your religion as evil. That you assume we are frustrated with you not because of your fallacious unreasonable assumptions, but because you are Christian. The very profound truths anyone with credibility knows are that you can be spiritual without being religious, you can be moral without being religious, you can be religious and tolerate homosexuality, you can be religious and support homosexuality, you can be religious and celebrate homosexuality, you can do all these things and still disagree with you for something besides the one fact that you represent a viewpoint of the extreme minority of humans who have ever lived.

Never mind the fact that "homosexual" acts are in themselves harmless as much as any other sexual act is, never mind the fact that many of your assertions are patently false, never mind the fact you refuse to acknowledge your incomplete comprehension of the bible, never mind the fact that you misunderstand the legal ramifications of having "civil unions" and traditional conservative (and most likely in this case- american protestant) marriages, never mind the fact that you fundamentally misunderstand the messages in the bible referring the effeminimity and rape, never mind the fact that you remain ignorant to the "homosexual" habits of other species. Never mind those. It is because you are religious that we hold contempt with you.

Please. Some humans with viewpoints such as you have laid out in your OP need to grow up and realize that their life is not the center of reality. It is arrogance, more than ignorance I believe, that is responsible here. Refusal to accept others based on own self-worth and habits, refusal to acknowledge scholars assertions, and refusal to acknowledge the valid reasoning of your peers.

[Sleeper]

Well, the last paragraph was for you apparently, but you did respond as well, so I guess I will have to take the good with the bad.

This is where the disconnect will be, because most of the scientific community (those that study natural phenomena) believe that it is not that our organs are designed to work with one another so much as they actually do.

I never called sodomy natural or unnatural, as you can read. In fact, I was clear that calling something natural or unnatural is poor thinking. I made a completely separate point, and I myself was worried people of certain views would get hung up on the word designed. My argument was that the primary evolutionary purpose of the penis is to enter the vagina, yada yada yada.

Very well. Just like there is no qualms about me sticking my hand inside my partner, I suppose there would be no qualm about tattoos. It is unfortunate the same is not said for "homosexual sex" (Which, btw, I have had with my girlfriend and feels fantastic).

Now you have been unable to make the distinction here between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. I understand that you used quotes to imply than homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy are the same action, an idea for which I myself can think up some cogent arguments, but then I wouldn't be speaking to the point.

It is important to note when sodomy actually came into play in near-eastern culture, unlike in Greece. Sodomy, and with its purpose rape, had often occurred between gangs of men and unwitting foreigners. This is no more obvious then in the Sodom and Gomorrah tale in the OT.

Wow is all I can say. Hopefully someone else will address this.

Not entirely true. You are confusing Victorian-era ethics of the Anglo-speaking world with the rest of reality.

No, I am not, but WHY do you think I am, you do not say.

Again to some, to others not. Many cultures actually sodomize ritually.

Here you have failed to separate the reality of sodomy in a culture from the cultural moral judgment of sodomy.

Where are you drawing these inferences from? I have always read and encountered the opposite, to be sure...

Well, polls, experience, survey studies, and common sense. Where else should I get such information from?

Consensual sex between two adults is analogous to SADISM!?

You are not actually arguing that consensual sadistic sex between two adults is not analogous to homosexuality, or heterosexuality?

RIGHT. Marriage has been a part of all cultures. What ignorant westo-centric source did you draw your information from? Jews did not invent the sacrament of marriage. Not to mention the fact that religious groups today perform homosexual marriages (which throws your "civil unions" distinction out the window, not only for it being grossly discriminatory).

This is a perfect example of twisting words. My argument was that in current western culture, marriage has had a meaning separate and apart from older cultures, which did not even have the word marriage, as that particular word is no older than English. And that the reality of the English meaning of marriage, similar to the reality of sodomy in a culture, is what should really be given supreme consideration. I was precise in my language, as you can see by my use of the phrase not easily separated. My point in the end being that the reality of homosexuality (it is ok and is going to continue regardless of what we do and even more, according to our own democratic principles it should be accepted as much as any other consensual sexual act) should be what we consider, as should the reality of what marriage means to a majority of people and their immediate and not so immediate cultural ancestors.

I will ignore the fact that you see liberalism- the value of LIBERTY- as a moral evil.

Liberalism is not the value of liberty. There is nothing else to say except that I never, by any stretch, called liberalism morally evil. I called lack of intellectually wasteful, as your post almost proves. Luckily my response disproves it.

That you view those who do not follow your religion as evil. That you assume we are frustrated with you not because of your fallacious unreasonable assumptions, but because you are Christian.

Mind directing me to the portion of my OP that says I am a Christian, or even religious.

The very profound truths anyone with credibility knows are that you can be spiritual without being religious, you can be moral without being religious, you can be religious and tolerate homosexuality, you can be religious and support homosexuality, you can be religious and celebrate homosexuality, you can do all these things and still disagree with you for something besides the one fact that you represent a viewpoint of the extreme minority of humans who have ever lived.

I agree with what you say here, however, if you last sentence is a claim that most humans who have ever lived believe homosexuality to be morally acceptable. One, you are wrong without doubt if we are talking post civilization, and two, you are certainly wrong as far as all living humans, especially if we go a generation back and further.

Never mind the fact you refuse to acknowledge your incomplete comprehension of the bible, never mind the fact that you misunderstand the legal ramifications of having "civil unions" and traditional conservative (and most likely in this case- american protestant) marriages, never mind the fact that you fundamentally misunderstand the messages in the bible referring the effeminimity and rape, never mind the fact that you remain ignorant to the "homosexual" habits of other species. Never mind those. It is because you are religious that we hold contempt with you.

Never mind that I never mentioned the bible, never mind that I in no way discussed the legal ramifications of civil unions, never all of the patently false assumptions you made about me, as I predicted people like you would. Never mind those.

Holding someone in contempt for being religious is as intellectually and morally repugnant a statement as can be imagined. If I had read through your entire post rather than answering it non argument by non argument, I would not have further responded after reading that last sentence.

So I think now I will do just that. Childish is a word you should refrain from using, for all the now obvious reasons.

[MaximiIian]

My argument was that the primary evolutionary purpose of the penis is to enter the vagina

And that means it can't go up the arse?
If the dick fits, stick it. So long as it's consensual.

Now you have been unable to make the distinction here between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. I understand that you used quotes to imply than homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy are the same action

It is the same action. A dick is a dick, and an arse is an arse. No matter what gender the arse belongs to.

[Sleeper]

It is the same action. A dick is a dick, and an arse is an arse. No matter what gender the arse belongs to.

It is not though I acknowledge the argument from a physical perspective. From a moral perspective a difference can easily be argued.

Is a horse's dick going into a human ass the same thing, as a dick is a dick and an arse is an arse?

[Scorch]

Just to let everyone know, we're keeping an eye on this thread.

[Sleeper]

I am giving up. I have tried to Discuss and Debate in a forum that really should be titled Posture and Pontificate.

I am actually being attacked for coming to the conclusion that homosexuality deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality, I just came to the conclusion using reality rather than ideals.

I am sorry for seeing a place bereft of cogent argument on contentious issues, and attempting to bring such arguments to it. Cookie cutters make good housewives, and I have no doubt all of you will raise free thinking children who never doubt their ideals for moment.

I also have no doubt that less than 22% of you realized what I actually meant by that last sentence, until you read this one. I am not deleting this post as it expresses my feelings at the moment, but I apologize to all of who are trying to argue and counter argue, and have raised the percentage to reflect this.

[Ummagumma]

Now, please misconstrue everything I have said, twist my words, and put forward broad generalized statements without argument to confirm your own intellectual superiority for yourself and all others who know the elusive truth, something apparently reserved for likely spoiled liberal Atheists. I am possibly a little put off by the actions of some here, and this last paragraph is for them, and them alone. The rest is for those who enjoy thinking for the sake of it.

You're so clever. How can we ever compete. Your mastery of self professed cogent argument shall be the end of our erroneous and pretentious ways. How very generous of you to inform us all of the nature of our own beings in such a succinct manner. We all owe you a great debt of unworthy gratitude. Now, Oh great wielder of intellectual truth finding, inform us all how we are to correct our spoiled liberal atheistic ways!

[Sleeper]

You're so clever. How can we ever compete. Your mastery of self professed cogent argument shall be the end of our erroneous and pretentious ways. How very generous of you to inform us all of the nature of our own beings in such a succinct manner. We all owe you a great debt of unworthy gratitude. Now, Oh great wielder of intellectual truth finding, inform us all how we are to correct our spoiled liberal atheistic ways!

Et tu Brute. My point was to ask people to argue, not to pontificate. Now, if you had addressed an argument or put forward one of the many counter arguments available or possible, you would maybe a something to stand on during the above pontification. Cogent argument does not mean only argument available, it means an argument based on some train of thought. We are all spoiled in the west, and most of us, including me, have some liberal beliefs, if you think otherwise, you don't think at all.

[Ummagumma]

It's not really an issue I think about. I did feel that I had to reply to your most humorous closing statement though. I've not witnessed such pretension in a long while indeed. Pots and Kettles.

[Maverick]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Gay marriage should be a non-issue. The Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment is not interpretational.

Having said that, gay union is constitutional because it doesn't prohibit religious free exercise.

Lobbyists in general have no respect for the essence of the law or constitution and the Gay Rights lobby is no different. Obviously we live in a free society where everyone is necessarily equal in the eyes of the government but this does not extend to religions whose freedom to be unequal is recognized in the constitution.

For example in Judaism the descendants of Aaron, the cohanim (priests) have always had unequal and special privileges that differentiate themselves from other Jews even though in the eyes of the government they are equals. The constitution protects this tradition in the same way it protects the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman.

[Maverick]

The Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment is not interpretational.

There is no such thing as not interpretational.

The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of a legal religious practice like marriage.

I have never heard the descendants of Aaron argument before, and am intrigued. It is a very cogent argument. Is it from somewhere specific?

First example that came to mind.

On the most base level of deciding what is right and wrong, good and bad, there is no argument that casts homosexual acts into the wrong/bad

That's because gay marriage is a legal issue not a moral issue. The pundits make it a moral issue because they have to talk about something. If the government obeys the mandates set out in the constitution there is not even a legal question.

[Da Skinna]

That's because gay marriage is a legal issue not a moral issue. The pundits make it a moral issue because they have to talk about something. If the government obeys the mandates set out in the constitution there is not even a legal question.

As you may see upon further a gander, I was not talking about marriage, but the acts itself.

Sleeper: I don't think and I didn't that was what you thought, you're much too bright for that, but a lot of people when they think of homosexuals they think all the worst things first. Nevermind that on average gay people make more money, are more likely to acquire professional level jobs, white collar as opposed to blue collar work.

They are still productive citizens, which is all I care about, they contribute, many even want to join the army and fight for their country, which some nations militaries do not allow. We repress these people and so their contributions to our communities, society at large and our culture as a whole suffers.

We need to talk about rather than saying "it's wrong, shame on you, sit in the corner" we have to say "it's wrong, at least in my and others' opinions, but you can still make a happy, fruitful, productive living as well as a contributing citizen."

[Sleeper]

Nevermind that on average gay people make more money, are more likely to acquire professional level jobs, white collar as opposed to blue collar work.

The following is a more appropriate statement to be shocked at. The above is true because openly gay people tend to be educated, white men.

[Sleeper]

My statement was an effort to get people to compose arguments, and it appears to have achieved the same success as most others such efforts here. The statement was meant to be humorous to people like you, who occasionally compose arguments, so heres :tacticalw to small victories.

Kettles and pots.

[Ummagumma]

Surely you'd have been better just making the post and letting it fly. Ignore any lame answers. It saves potentially insulting the whole forum that way.....
Never mind. It made me laugh. On with the show, I've derailed it enough now.

[Sleeper]

Surely you'd have been better just making the post and letting it fly. Ignore any lame answers. It saves potentially insulting the whole forum that way.....
Never mind. It made me laugh. On with the show, I've derailed it enough now.

Not if I believed all of the answers would be lame... I later posted a clarification, so I only insulted 78% of the forum.

[Da Skinna]

There are no reasonable, logical, rational grounds on which to protest homosexuality or sodomy, though the word sodomy should not really exist anymore anyways.

We let people get away with so many worse things, have let so many things that really are on the same lines as sodomy to become acceptable and we allow it to become so visibly prevalent but when two guys get close, all sudden we have values?

Ridiculous, utter tosh, rubbish, ****ing stupid.

And didn't sodomy back in the day mean any kind of sexual relations not meant for the sole purpose of reproduction?

[Sleeper]

There are no reasonable, logical, rational grounds on which to protest homosexuality or sodomy.

There are rational, logical grounds on which to protest anything that relates to the subjective nature of morality.

We let people get away with so many worse things, have let so many things that really are on the same lines as sodomy to become acceptable and we allow it to become so visibly prevalent but when two guys get close, all sudden we have values?

Letting people get away with, which is a very telling phrase about your moral views on homosexual sodomy, something like something does not mean we should let people get away with the specific something. We let people get away with a lot of things that are like murder (economic destruction), but not murder.

Ridiculous, utter tosh, rubbish, ****ing stupid.

When confronted with such depth of insight, I must admit, I am without words or counter-arguments. Touche.

And didn't sodomy back in the day mean any kind of sexual relations not meant for the sole purpose of reproduction?

The word sodomy may have meant many things in different cultures, luckily, the OP is very clear on what types of sodomy are being discussed. To be clear, sodomy is precisely defined in the OP.

[Da Skinna]

There are rational, logical grounds on which to protest anything that relates to the subjective nature of morality.

Not when we say we value human rights and say we respect people's decisions. The fact is sodomy infringes on no one's rights and liberties, or at least homosexual sex between males do not. That's the rationale, there is no one being hurt in these kinds of matters and so to have it illegal is wrong because it violates people's basic human rights to decide for themselves what is best for them. Is that morality subjective enough? Wrong to infringe on people and their rights and liberties because of our own moralities which decide what? It's wrong and must be punished? On the most base level of deciding what is right and wrong, good and bad, there is no argument that casts homosexual acts into the wrong/bad because at our most base level, we are about self-preservation, the self before the society, something you can understand, if you understand sadism like that.

But you could argue that our most base levels are subjective, which some people in some fields of work could disagree, check on that.

Letting people get away with, which is a very telling phrase about your moral views on homosexual sodomy, something like something does not mean we should let people get away with the specific something. We let people get away with a lot of things that are like murder (economic destruction), but not murder.

My point is the double standards we apply to certain issues, to me, it's either draw the line or don't. You can't accept some forms of liberty violations and not others, we either believe in equality or we don't. These aren't gray areas.

When confronted with such depth of insight, I must admit, I am without words or counter-arguments. Touche.

I'll accept that.