(My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for waking me up to what strike me as logical problems in some of the arguments in favor of sodomy laws. I have neglected this blog site for too long, and now I feel guilty...)

I guess I'm now a year or so late on sodomy postings, but now that the likes of Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have helped out the American sodomy law lobby by weighing in at the UN, the least I could do is post a blog site comment.

Clayton Cramer (link at instapundit.com) seems to forget that the original
sodomy laws from which ours derive were not passed to stop AIDS; they date back to the reign of Justinian and his wife Theodora, who used them during the twilight of the Roman Empire to persecute their political enemies. Far
from combating AIDS or any other diseases, these laws served mainly to hearken the advent of the Dark Ages.

Cramer, who is against gun control, but for dick control, should rethink his position. People who do not like guns or gun owners want to legislate against responsible gun owners for the excesses committed by the irresponsible
ones. AIDS is not caused by “sodomy” or by “sodomites” in the general sense,
and it makes no sense to punish everyone for the excesses of some.

For that matter, from where derives the idea that if sodomy is a bad thing, we must punish it by locking sodomites up in an all male environment?

By the way, the word “sodomy” is itself overinclusive, for the conduct at Sodom involved (taking the Bible literally as we must) an angry mob threatening
to break down Lot’s door and gang-rape God’s angels (the latter presumably
men). Those of us who are not into gang-raping angels are thus unfairly lumped with a small, malevolent minority.

Contrary to the implications of Santorum’s argument, I do not advocate opening the door to angel rape, and I would support 100% a “Biblical Sodom” sodomy statute were it to criminalize only forcible same-sex intercourse between man and angel.