I was working from an understanding of the term “sodomy” that included all non-procreative sex, but looking around online, it looks like that definition is too broad. Wikipedia supports it, but none of the dictionaries I checked do. So my mistake there on all gay sex being sodomy by definition.
That being said, the law that was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas specifically outlawed homosexual sodomy, and excluded heterosexual sodomy. So, yes, the law in question was about criminalizing homosexuality.
In Scalia’s dissent, which was signed by both Rehnquist and Thomas. Although in fairness, Thomas also wrote his own dissent where he called the law “uncommonly silly.” Which still makes him an asshole. Laws specifically prosecuting minorities aren’t “silly,” they’re offenses to basic human decency. But he’s not nearly as big an asshole as Scalia.
Although I suppose that last bit goes without saying, considering how much of an asshole Scalia is under the best of circumstances.
I once fast-talked a cow-orker into an amusing definition of “sodomy.”
“Any non-reproductive conjunction of anal, oral, or genital apertures.” I mentioned that this included analingus, and he was so grossed out, he agreed to the definition without thinking about it any further.
So…the poor dear…just included kissing in his definition of sodomy!
Incidentally, my favorite part from the Wiki entry on Lawrence v. Texas:
“In accordance with police procedures, the first to arrive, Joseph Quinn, took the lead both in approaching the scene and later in determining what charges to bring. He later reported seeing Lawrence and Garner having anal sex in the bedroom. A second officer reported seeing them engaged in oral sex…”
The cops reported observing them engage in both anal and oral sex? Just how long were the cops watching before they made their arrest?
Commenting on the ‘beauty’ of a cherrypicked part of the Islamic world ignores the inextricably related barbarity and depravity that invariably accompanies Islamic aesthetics.
It’s not surprising that there are no hard-and-fast (excuse the phrasing) definitions of sodomy. Most ecclesiastical and legal authorities were too squicked out to say what it actually was, so it was generally described in euphemisms that did nothing to aid in understanding (“the deviant act,” or “the abominable crime against nature.”) I think it’s fair to say that the only kinds of sex a gay couple can have would fall under the most common definitions.
Commenting on the “barbarity and depravity” of a cherrypicked part of the Islamic world ignores the vast majority of Muslims who are neither barbarous nor depraved.
This is an anti-science viewpoint promoted by delusional ideologues who are not in correspondence with reality. It compares to climate change denial and creationism in its blind ignorance of evidence in favor of an unsubstantiated belief.
FACT: 1 in 4 British Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.
FACT: 1 in 2 American Muslims want to be governed by Shariah law.
FACT: 4 in 5 Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam.
FACT: 1 in 4 American Muslims believe it is legitimate to use violence against depictions of the prophet Muhammad.
FACT: 1 in 5 American Muslims believe that the use of violence is justified in order to enact Shariah law in this country.
They are your friends. Your coworkers. Your neighbors. And one in four would be perfectly happy stoning you to death for exercising your free speech rights. Islam is a cancer upon this Earth and an existential threat to the West. Thankfully, it will be bourgeois degenerates like yourself who are the first to go, giving all real Americans carte blanche to defend our culture and way of life.
A small minority had “sympathy for the motives” behind the attacks. Why shouldn’t they? French Muslims are treated horribly, and that was part of the motive for the attack.
Wow, an online survey of 600 alleged Muslims? And it failed to specify whether it was in reference to civil matters, criminal matters, or something else? How useless.
That reflects poorly on them. How do you get from that to “the Islamic world”, though?
That’s the same junk online survey again.
And again.
Your choice of sources says far more about you than about Muslims. Your hatred is irrational and profoundly un-American.
FACT: 15% of Americans hold extreme anti-Semitic beliefs. We should all be wiped off the face of the map. Or we could just stop cherry picking statistics.
Oh, I see. The fact that Islam has inspired some of its adherents to commit horrific crimes means that any art it has inspired is also morally repugnant. Got it. So I assume The Pieta and the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa are also beyond the pale? How about the Statue of Liberty and “America the Beautiful”?
Art appreciation must be difficult when you can only see in black and white.
Christianity does not say it’s OK to beat your wife. (Yes, the Koran does say that.)
Christian women can go outside without being covered from head to toe in suffocating, constricting burkas.
Christian women can go outside, period.
Christian women can drive.
Christian women can vote.
Christian women can work.
Christian women do not have to endure the hurt and humiliation of their husband taking another wife.
Christian women do not have their clitoris hacked off so that they cannot enjoy sexual pleasure.
Christian women do not need to fear that their male relatives will kill them to defend the family’s “honor” if they are unfortunate enough to be raped.
You need to read 1 Corinthians 11. You also need to realize that not all areas with a Muslim majority require women to be covered as you describe.
Muslim women can go outside, period.
Muslim women can drive, even in Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is not the be all and end all of Islam.
Muslim women can vote, even in Muslim countries.
Muslim women can work, even in Muslim countries.
Nah, they just have to endure the hurt and humiliation of their husband taking a mistress because divorce is prohibited in at least one “Christian country” and they cannot terminate the marriage.
If your point is that you are profoundly ignorant of the topic at hand, you need not go on; you have demonstrated that fact very well. Here’s some free advice for you: Instead of copying and pasting stuff from an obviously biased site, do some actual research before you post.
Theology doesn’t matter. The past doesn’t matter. What matters is reality, right now, and in the real world Islam is a dangerous and barbarous religion that has spent thousands of years trying desperately to subjugate every corner of the earth (thankfully, they were stopped by the low intelligence and incompetence of non-Jewish non-European peoples). If you deny that the Islamic world is an incomparably worse place to live than the West, you’re just as close-minded and ignorant as any of the groups (creationists, GMO advocates, anti-vaccinaters) you consider yourself superior to.
Your transparently biased sources seem to be desperately trying to deny that cultural practices associated with Islam exist only in that culture.
In the end, though, it doesn’t matter: it is the things you value, like feminism, equality, LGBT rights, and sexual liberation, that will be the first to go.
You [del]spewed[/del] posted that as though it’s actually true. You wouldn’t happen to have any unbiased (meaning not dishonest anti-Islamic sites) sources to bolster your [del]vomitum[/del] assertions, would you? Thought not.
The trouble is that you beg the question by defining any site that posts facts on Islam as anti-islamic, because Islam is the religion of a pedophile and false prophet. But see the BBC survey posted above indicating that 27% (>600,000) British Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That’s 600,000 perfect candidates for deportation.
