Words that suck? Don't you think that referring to Social Security as a 'scheme' reflects a certain bias on your own part?

I don't care what anyone says, Pat Buchanan is entitled to sodomy.

LOL Dave. I would ask how literally you're interpreting his entitlement, but...

Choc, I called it a 'scheme' only because I was too lazy to type "intergenerational Ponzi scheme." But that's what I think it is. Actually, there are stronger words than "scheme" that might characterize the practice of tricking people into thinking that money is there for them when it is not.

I think the sodomy - angel rape distinction is a bit pedantic. You might as well argue that buggery should only correspond to heterosexuals going for anal as a contraceptive. That's the historical origin if the term, true, but both common use and even use as a term of legal art it's nowhere near accurate. Sodom was even already scheduled for blamming before the angels arrive, so it's about as logical to complain that people might think it's a reference to terminal inhospitality. Words evolve over time, often past any resemblence to their original or historical meaning

That's not to defend the use of the word in this case, where pretty much any definition ends up either tautological (deviancy is both a loaded term and a meaningless one) or wildly inaccurate (a lot of gay men and most lesbian women don't do anal, while lots of heterosexual couples do; including all sex through non-reproductive methods is almost certainly a wider group than he's actually talking about). Words evolve over time, but not always to useful terms.

There's common usage, as well as the legal term (which has often included heterosexual practices like oral and anal intercourse), but what annoys me is the claim that the term is Biblical, when it was an argumentative term invented by a monk:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/obsessive_peopl.html

Eric: Yes, Social Security is an intergenerational transfer payment program. The government takes from the young and gives to the old, whether they need the money or not. However, it isn't a true Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme must collapse. Social Security can go on forever because Congress can cut the benefits or raise taxes to keep it afloat.

It's a Ponzi scheme in the way it is presented. Yes, Congress can cut the benefits, but they just don't want people to know. Hence the use of the word "entitlement."

I like the word "sodomy", how do you know you're doing it right if someone isn't calling it "sodomy"?

But I'd always thought it meant any sexual act not the "missionary position".
She's on top? Sodomy.
Blow Job? Sodomy.
But then, I was raised Catholic and I'm pretty sure that's their position. (heh)

As for the etymology, I've always thought it was from Sodom because that was an especially sexually licentious place, not because they were going to rape the angels. I figured that "gomorrahite" was too hard to spell.

I also always thought they were just going to kill the angels, until Lot offered the mob his virgin daughters to "do with as they please". Nice guy. But that's another rant.

I would even want to be called a "sodomite" except that the people who use that word usually mean "gay" not just your average sexual deviant and I try to avoid confustion.

Some words (like sodomite or tea-bagger) say a lot more about the speaker than the intended target.
That's why I like those types of words.
Life is too short to deal with idiots and jackasses (except for entertainment).
And that's why I like facial tattoos, I know right away that I don't have to take that person seriously so can safely ignore him or her.

But then, I have a low opinion of people in general so anything that allows me to figure out right away that they are in the majority (people I don't like), makes my life easier.

I like Veeshir's point about words like "sodomy" serving as indicators of the kinds of characters who use them.

As far as the word "sodomy," Eric's post suggests he might have some familiarity with Mark Jordan's book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, which, despite its post-modern theoretical apparatus offers some useful insights into the history of the term. (The book also offends and enrages many of the right people, so that's good, too.)

And over at GayPatriot, there is also a discussion going on about homosexuality in Greece and Rome. There, B. Daniel Blatt, observes that, contrary to being responsible for the downfall of these ancient civilizations, homosexual behavior was a part of these civilizations before their rise. That post can be found here:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/02/20/was-homosexuality-responsible-for-rise-of-greece-and-rome/

A while back we discussed the term "entitlement" at Making Light ( http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/011146.html ). Formula spending or commitment spending were suggested replacements for the kind of programs where the payout is fixed by law and will continue until the law is changed.

Don't forget that Lot was the honorable man in the situation for offering his daughters to the mob. Evidently the mob was not interested in young females.

If offering daughters to rapists is to be seen as honorable in that context, then why did Lot do that? To prevent the rape of God's angel? Or because he thought heterosexual rape was preferable to homosexual rape? Would it have made any difference to God had the rapists been satisfied and instead ravaged Lot's daughters? The message might be that heterosexual rape is not as bad as homosexual rape, but it still sheds no light on consent, or love, and does not justify the medieval comparison which became embedded in our lexicon.

perhaps if you looked at legal codes, wherein certain behaviors were proscribed, one might find the term 'sodomy'. This establishes a legal meaning for the word. 'Assault' has a legal meaning, probably different than you think. You can commit assault without touching or harming someone. If you do touch or harm, we add 'battery' to the crime - assault and battery. heard that one before?

So I am IN NO WAY endorsing the gentleman's point of view, but maybe you should look into the usage of the word in more than just the catholic church before going off on a rant. Fix the legal definition first, then you can quit using the word.

BTW, I don't think the 'angel rape' is the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The place was a veritable Las Vegas, they way I read it...or Bangkok, or...

I understand your point Bill, except there are problems with assuming the author refers to the legal definition of sodomy. The legal term is by no means restricted to homosexuals and in some jurisdiction it included oral or anal intercourse between ANY two persons. But that is clearly not what Ryan Sorba means, as his tract uses "sodomy" and repeatedly refers to "pro-sodomy" organizations and publications as meaning homosexuality and gay activists.

I realize that the sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional, so at this point there is no controlling legal definition, but to the extent heterosexual intercourse was included, the word is inaccurate. Sorba uses it only in the way he wants, and I think it's quite obvious that he means it in the medieval, not strictly biblical sense.

And if Sodom was a veritable Las Vegas, does that mean God hates gambling too? I'm not getting the subtext.

Sodom was destroyed because they took advantage of strangers. Kindness to strangers was a very high value when people lived closer to the margins. The rape was indicative not definitive.

Didn't the boos begin as he took the platform? Why are sodomites, ancient and new, from Sodom and Gomorrah to Smith, Columbia, and the CPAC so rude to their guests?

Perhaps it's the old camp song: marijuana, marijuana, pcp, pcp....