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!

Sexual bigotry is the worst sort of identity politics, and identity politics sucks!

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.

CARTHAGA DELENDA EST!

Reflections on the Daniel Pearl Execution Video

Initially, I downloaded the video of Daniel Pearl's execution by Islamic terrorists for a very simple reason. I do not like being told -- by people who have seen the video! -- that I am not allowed to see it. That insults my intelligence, and so my immediate reaction was: FIND IT AND DOWNLOAD IT! Having done so, I think a review is in order.

First, why is it that the control freaks at the wheel don't want us "little people" to see what they have seen? Do they fear for our psyches? Do they fear that we will be traumatized by seeing a brutal and grotesque murder? Or do they think we will be desensitized by the scene?

I think the answer is neither. I believe that those who oppose Americans seeing this film clip are trying to prevent the righteous indignation which naturally arises when one sees an innocent compatriot slaughtered in cold blood by a cruel and heartless enemy.

"The enemy!"

There's a term you don't hear much these days. But under any definition, the people who killed Daniel Pearl are our sworn enemies. And we are in a war. So why, then, is there such a well-organized effort to stop Americans from seeing something which could contribute to justifiable, warlike anger?

Might they be afraid that Americans at war might want to go kill the enemy?

We don't have to look far to find an appropriate historical precedent. In World War II, troops passed around a photograph of an allied pilot being executed by the Japanese. It was originally felt by military censors that the photograph would prove demoralizing, but it turned out to have just the opposite effect: it heightened the determination of our soldiers to kill the evil bastards who did the shocking deed, in short, to kill the enemy.

I would suggest that every American download the Daniel Pearl video, watch it, and remind himself that we are in a war, and that there is a detestable, bloodthirsty enemy whose stated goal is to do to all of us exactly what they have shown themselves doing to Daniel Pearl.

I do not believe watching this film shows any disrespect for Daniel Pearl or his family, and I suggest that the best way to respect the memory of Daniel Pearl (lest his death be in vain) is to watch the film, and then resolve that it is time to AVENGE DANIEL PEARL.

Did we need a reminder that we are at war and that the enemy is not nice?

UPDATE: (May 12, 2004) Welcome new visitors, and my thanks to whoever is sending me traffic on this post! (I can't figure it out yet, but I'm working on it...) Interested visitors might want to see two additional posts: one with a direct link to the Daniel Pearl video, and the other on Islamist snuff films in general.

Thanks for visiting!

UPDATE (May 13, 2004): I feel the same way about the beheading of Nick Berg as I do about Daniel Pearl, and I decided to make that video available, too. Interested readers can stream or download it by going here.

MORE (6-18-04): I feel the same way about the savage murders of Paul Johnson and Robert Jacobs that I did about the butchery of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, and I have made more material available (videos, photos, links, plus additional discussion) here and here for all who are interested.

The argument that the CIA is butchering all these Americans in some sort of "false flag" operation is wearing a bit thin, I'm afraid....

Culture War

What is this thing we call the "Culture War" and why do we seem to be stuck with it?

The Culture War is being promoted on many fronts and by many groups, but let us start with one particularly emotional, stubborn modern issue: why are so many people apoplectic about homosexuality?

Whether one calls them "moral conservatives," the "religious right," or "family values" people -- one thing is clear: their political Mother Lode is an unshakable obsession that society will somehow collapse if people are not made to worry constantly about whether or not certain citizens are placing their private parts into the right orifices.

Naturally, this furnishes an unending supply of fuel for those on the left-wing side of the political spectrum, for emotional "hot-button" issues are their stock in trade. Was it an accident that the modern gay rights movement began largely as an adjunct to the anti-war left? Further, why did it take fundamentalist singer Anita Bryant (who shouted about homosexuality on the cover of Newsweek in order to stop it) to put the gay rights cause indelibly and permanently on the political map?

Largely a reaction against anti-homosexual bigotry, the gay rights movement would be unnecessary in an enlightened society. The gay rights movement and the moral conservatives need each other and help perpetuate each other, just as the Republicans and the Democrats need each other.

Does it strikes you as preposterous that so much of the political agenda in a supposedly enlightened, free country is driven by such considerations as whether or not some people happen to like where certain men's might consent to place their penises?

Ideologues would like to paint this as a war between "traditional values" and modern "moral relativism."

History is forgotten in the process.