A Picture Is Worth Two Words

Jim Burroway

March 4th, 2008

Criminalize Sodomy

Emily K

March 4th, 2008

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

David Puranen

March 4th, 2008

Of course not anything involving the bum gives Jesus the hebijebees

a. mcewen

March 4th, 2008

criminalize bad sex.

Zeke

March 4th, 2008

Criminalize bigotry!

Criminalize stupidity!

Criminalize hate!

Mark

March 4th, 2008

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

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

Bruce Garrett

March 5th, 2008

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

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

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

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

“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

“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

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

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

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

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

“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

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.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Born On This Day, 1951: Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury

Born On This Day, 1952: Gus Van Sant

Born On This Day, 1965: Kirk Andrew Murphy

Clinton Pays Private Visit With Pulse Families, Pays Respects To Victims

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1987: Reagan Names Gay Man To AIDS Commission

Born On This Day, 1816: Charlotte Saunders Cushman

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.