May 29, 2002
Deregulate Homosexuality -- Now and Evermore!
What is a Sodomite?
When most people think of sodomy, they think of two men engaging in anal intercourse. A dwindling number of states criminalize sodomy, but about half of those have no requirement that the parties be of the same sex, and some even criminalize anal (and yes, even oral!) intercourse between husband and wife. If we consider the numbers -- heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by at least ten to one (and the figure may be twenty to one) -- then the majority of sodomites in the United States are heterosexual.
In the post-AIDS "safe sex" era, many homosexuals now refrain from anal intercourse, and some from oral intercourse, preferring instead masturbation and various sexual games which do not meet any state's legal definition of sodomy.
There can thus be little debate that at minimum, not all sodomites are homosexuals, and not all homosexuals are sodomites.
Perhaps some religious folks would disagree with this analysis, and point to the biblical Sodom for support. The problem is, a literal reading of the biblical story of Sodom (and fundamentalists insist on literalism, right?), shows plainly that the men of the city were not interested in ordinary, consensual homosexuality; they demanded that God's angels be handed over to a hostile mob, hell-bent on rape, and threatening to break down Lot's door. This resembles nothing so much as a contemporary Hollywood prison rape scene, and would be considered rape (or attempted rape) anywhere in the United States today. (The Bible reader must assume, of course, that angels are men, and have male genitalia. If not, then applying the word "sodomy" to consenting homosexual acts between humans is even more of a stretch.)
To call homosexuals "sodomites" is about as ridiculous and anachronistic as the sodomy laws themselves. Still, the insult persists, as if somehow it will shame homosexuals into enrolling themselves in how-to courses on the finer arts of penile-vaginal intercourse. Such thinking is misguided, and merely causes angered homosexuals to react in kind.
What reaction? Will some eager young gay radical form the Young Sodomists League?
The Problem With Anti-Gay Bigots
...is that they want to find out what it is that other people do sexually, and then they want to claim them in some sort of brotherhood, or else disown them as unfit people to associate with. They demand the right to tell other people how to raise their children, particularly as to their definition of human sexuality. Once they identify a person as heterosexual, they encourage, even demand, a liturgy of constant self-affirmation of heterosexuality as the best measuring stick of a human being's worth. As if such peer pressure isn't bad enough in itself, one's sexual desires are now considered a litmus test of one's politics!
The Problem With Gay Bigots
...is that they want to find out what it is that other people do sexually, and then they want to claim them in some sort of brotherhood, or else disown them as unfit people to associate with. They demand the right to tell other people how to raise their children, particularly as to their definition of human sexuality. Once they identify a person as homosexual, they encourage, even demand, a liturgy of constant self-affirmation of homosexuality as the best measuring stick of a human being's worth. As if such peer pressure isn't bad enough in itself, one's sexual desires are now considered a litmus test of one's politics!
Till WHAT Do Us Part?
Who-screws-who identity politics has reached new heights of idiocy with the debate over gay marriage.
Insecure homosexuals who need validation, along the lines of "I'm as good as you are!", without thinking things through, have demanded the "right" to marry -- as if that is part of the sum total of human rights without which one is not a citizen or even a person. They forget that marriage is a governmental and religious institution, with all sorts of strings attached. They also forget that most marriages end in divorce, and, worse, under the jurisdiction of increasingly powerful, privacy-invading, "family courts." Property rights are lost, losing parties end up embittered, and often feel stalked for the rest of their lives by persons they once loved.
Why do homosexuals (and so many on the left) want to inflict such a scheme on themselves? Why do they want to subject their currently free, unencumbered relationships to the not-so-tender mercies of family courts?
A better question: why do they want to subject the relationships of non-consenting homosexuals to the family courts???
The "right to marry" cannot be seen in a vacuum, merely as a "right." Once the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage are applied to gay life, then no gay couple -- no matter how much they might prize their privacy -- will be immune from the heavy hand of the law. All that would be needed would be for a vengeful or jealous party to decide that he is at law a "common law spouse," and legal jurisdiction would immediately obtain.
Consent, you say?
Until now, consensual homosexuality has been one of the few remaining unregulated, private sanctuaries of bohemian life in America. I for one would like to keep it that way. Sodomy laws aside, I find myself in ironic (if unsettling) agreement with the anti-gay crowd that homosexuality should remain unregulated -- and outside the purview of an ever-more oppressive state.
posted by Eric on 05.29.02 at 08:23 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
Why you might get more of what you try to stop
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?