Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

A Picture Is Worth Two Words

Jim Burroway

March 4th, 2008

Criminalize Sodomy

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Emily K
March 4th, 2008 | LINK

i’m confused. does this mean a guy and a girl can’t have anal sex, either?

David Puranen
March 4th, 2008 | LINK

Of course not anything involving the bum gives Jesus the hebijebees

a. mcewen
March 4th, 2008 | LINK

criminalize bad sex.

Zeke
March 4th, 2008 | LINK

Criminalize bigotry!

Criminalize stupidity!

Criminalize hate!

Mark
March 4th, 2008 | LINK

While we’re on the subject of interesting signs, I’m a student at the University of Florida, and we have preachers out in a public area most days of the week. Recently, they’ve been waving this sign around:

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v194/139/115/2012746/n2012746_45642034_3225.jpg

I think it’s my favorite anti-gay sign ever :-) All of my gay friends were crowding around it, amused. One of my friends joked, “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you guys!”

Emily K
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

You have preachers that parade on your campus? Is that legal?? Or is the university private?

Bruce Garrett
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

Did this shot come from the crowd gathered around the California Supreme Court yesterday as they heard arguments in the same sex marriage case? I hear that crowd had a lot of anti-gay protesters in it, and I was wondering if the gay haters were more open about why they were there then simply to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage…

Bruce Garrett
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

Ah… Never mind. I googled the filename and saw that Andrew Sullivan had posted it and got the context from there.

You know…those folks are just one U.S. Supreme Court justice away from doing just that.

Avery Dame
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

It is, Emily. My campus (University of Alabama) is currently hosting Brother Micah and Sister Elizabeth, Holiness Pentecostal open-air screamers. They’re restricted rather firmly to the “free speech zone” of the campus and can be removed if they become a serious disturbance or are under repeated threat of violence. Traveling screamers tend to fund their campaigns through assault lawsuits and church funds, so it’s to their advantage to be punched.

They’re are usually a one-week show, the only time when Southern Baptists and the GLBT organization can unite in their common dislike for loud, disturbing con-men assholes who hit bibles. For a good idea of the usual, you can Youtube Micah.

Jason D
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

From what I understand, the definition of sodomy can be very broad to include anything that isn’t male to female vaginal penetration in the missionary position.

It amazes me that people think it’s any of their business what two consenting adults do with their body parts, especially when it harms neither of them.

Suricou Raven
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

“i’m confused. does this mean a guy and a girl can’t have anal sex, either?”

Yep. Some of the anti-gay group really want homosexuality to be criminalised. Criminalising heterosexual anal sex would be a consequence they welcome, but not their main objective.

The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.

The idea of ‘recriminalising sodomy’ isn’t strictly accurate – in many states, it already *is* a criminal offense – some have laws banning all anal sex, some only anal sex between same-gender people. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi (Ten year jail time per act!), North Carolina (10yr again), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

But in those states, its not enforced, because the police know that if they were to try it would almost certinly result in the law being struck down in court as happened in eleven states, one of which went on to set the Lawrence vs Texas precident. Nonetheless they remain on the books. I have no wonder how long before some local police department tries to use them against someone who actually fights it in court and draws attention to these old laws.

Jason D
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

“The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.”

And one unmentioned downside. Anal sex is not a requirement to be gay. Lesbians, from what I understand, don’t really bother with it at all. While anal sex is popular among gay men, there seem to be plenty of men who aren’t interested in it at all.

zortnac
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

Why do I look at this picture and get the feeling that it’s somehow connected to, or part of, the Slavic evangelical anti-gay movement/culture?

Timothy Kincaid
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

Suricou Raven,

I believe you are slightly inaccurate in your discussion of sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all laws that set about to criminalize homosexual sex.

While there are some states that continue to hold those laws on their books “as a matter of principle” (or more accurately as a matter of pride in their own bigotry), they cannot be enforced nor can they be said to be “the law” – even in those states, sodomy is not a crime. Those provisions would not need to be struck down, they already have been.

Arguably, a state could maintain a sodomy law that applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals (as some were written), but they would have to show that they were diligent in prosecuting heterosexuals and that their intent was not to intimidate homosexuals. One of the arguments against sodomy laws was that while they were not inforced, they were a tool for discrimination and implied criminalization of a class of people.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Jason D
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

I still don’t get it, honestly I don’t.

The government can’t tell me what to eat, when to eat it. It doesn’t tell me how often to bathe, what products to use. They tell us to wear clothes, but that’s only in public, and it’s pretty obvious there is a large spectrum of different clothes that are acceptable.

I have the right to have my skin tattooed, punctured, and or branded. I can dye my hair any color I want, shave it all off, or grow it indefinitely.

They don’t tell me when to see the doctor, certainly don’t order me to have any medical procedures.
They don’t tell me where, when, or who I can hug, shake hands with, or kiss. They leave that up to me and the person(s) involved.

The only time our government gets involved in what we do with our bodies is when it is dangerous to ourselves (drugs, alcohol, suicide) and or dangerous to others(drunk driving, rape, assault,murder).

So why do people think the government not only can, but should regulate my personal sexual activities? Since when did my genitals become a controlled substance or a piece of government property?

Mark
March 5th, 2008 | LINK

They generally stay in one of two areas, but I think it’s ok pretty much anywhere on campus. It’s a state university, and free speech is legitimate pretty much anywhere on campus unless it attempts to immediately incite violence.

At first they’re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.

Amsel
March 6th, 2008 | LINK

“At first they’re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.”

My first year at UNC-Chapel Hill there was incident with our pit preacher – Gary Birdsong. His message is not limited to gay people but also includes women. All women should be in the kitchen, pregnant, & housewives and should not be receiving higher education. Long story short a woman was walking across campus in what he interpreted as appropriate clothing (long dress, heels, etc etc). When he pointed out the woman as an example of how all women should dress, she stopped walking set her bag down & stripped down to her undies then kept on walking.

She is a bit of a legend around here, I only wish I knew who she was to tell her she is my hero.

But in all fairness these people do have a right to free speech so long is it does not threaten anybody. No one here likes him and it becomes a game to try & make him freak out. Personally I think these people push more moderates to supporting gay rights.

JiminColo
March 9th, 2008 | LINK

And for those gays that don’t partake in sodomy? Are their relationships blessed? :)

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.