[ARCHIVED THREAD] - . (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/25/2004 3:23:57 PM EDT
|
Looking at some other threads got me to thinking about the Sodomy Laws in various states. Were these laws enacted as a way to prosecute gay people? Or where hetrosexuals also prosecuted? The only case I've ever heard about was the Texas deal with the two gay guys. Or using it to prosecute a rapist. |
Uhhhhhhh.....  
|
| They were an example of the religious zealots in power projecting their personal religion into thecivil life of the country and the personal life of the citizens where it didn't belong, whether or not those citizens happened to share the religious inclinations of the people in power. |
No, they were an example of people with near-universal adherence to a single religion enacting their standards of behavior into law. |
Sounds like the same thing to me. |
+1 |
Yeah. |
The Supreme Court has struck down Sodomy laws.
Here is link to the Brief if you like reading legalese.www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf |
|
The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin' That's what I said The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand Or so I have read My baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo I'd like to sink her with my pink torpedo Big bottom, big bottom Talk about bum cakes, my girl's got 'em Big bottom drive me out of my mind How could I leave this behind? I met her on Monday, twas my lucky bun day You know what I mean I love her each weekday, each velvety cheek day You know what I mean My love gun's loaded and she's in my sights Big game is waiting there inside her tights, yeah Big bottom, big bottom Talk about mud flaps, my girl's got 'em Big bottom drive me out of my mind How could I leave this behind? |
Isn't it wonderful....if you commit sodomy in some states and get caught, they throw you in jail with a large man with a temper control issue who's likely to sodomize you.  Reality check: Butt sex is intrinsically nasty, unsanitary in the extreme, and has great potential for spreading diseases. THIS is why it's illegal in some places. CJ |
what about oral sex? that's also considered sodomy. plus, what is wrong with a little anal here and there with some short blonde with no morals? |
Fixed it for you. (same type of thinking). |
Damn, that's funny I don't care who you are. I've heard that somewhere. 
|
sodomy and the AWB have nothing to do with one another. both should have never been legislated to begin with, and i am happy to see both of them dead and gone. |
I realize they have nothing to do with each other. My point is it's the same kind of thinking. Someone thinks it's evil so it get legislated to the way they want it. |
ahhhh, but already th eschools have had gays in to "teach" children about how homos enjoy each other....... and no, this does not only happen in kanada, in fact, it happens in Eastern Kanada, and various states in the Union, including RED states/........\ Up here Sodomy strictly means anal intercourse, and it is illegal if one or both participants are under the age of 18, and or if there are more than 2 people present... makes all the anal porns technically illegal ( film crews, multiple "actors" etc.) |
Really? Do you have any idea how long sodomy was outlawed? When the prohibition started? If you do, I'd love to hear you compare and contrast the 1994 AWB with the _______ (well, you know the date) sodomy ban. Compare and contrast the origins and purposes of the prohibitions (that is, what "type of thinking" led to each of them), their legal histories, and the reasons for their respective demises. Hint: "I like blowjobs and I like rifles with bayonet lugs" is not a sound basis for comparison. |
Yes. At common law "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" included copulation per os (oral), per anum (duh) and bestiality, and was sometimes held to include frottage and mutual masturbation. |
|
STATES WITH SODOMY LAWS ON THEIR BOOKS RESIDENT LAND AREA POPULATION STATE SQUARE MILES (2000 CENSUS) CAPITAL LARGEST CITY 1) Alabama @ 50,766 4,447,100 Montgomery Birmingham (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $2,000.00 Fine 2) Arkansas 52,082 2,673,400 Little Rock Little Rock (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $1,000.00 Fine 3) Florida 54,157 15,982,378 Tallahassee Jacksonville (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 60 Days & $500.00 Fine 4) Georgia 58,060 8,186,453 Atlanta Atlanta (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 20 Years 5) Idaho 82,413 1,293,953 Boise Boise (Felony) Maximum Penalty: Life in Prison 6) Kansas * 81,783 2,688,418 Topeka Wichita (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 6 Months & $1,000.00 Fine 7) Kentucky 39,674 4,041,769 Frankfort Louisville 8) Louisiana 44,520 4,468,976 Baton Rouge New Orleans (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 5 Years & $2,000.00 Fine 9) Maryland * 9,838 5,296,486 Annapolis Baltimore (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 10 Years & $1,000.00 Fine 10) Massachusetts 7,826 6,349,097 Boston Boston (Felony) Maximum Penalty: Anal Intercourse: 20 Years, Oral Sex: 5 Years & $1,000.00 Fine 11) Montana 145,388 902,195 Helena Billings (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 10 Years & $50,000.00 Fine 12) Michigan 56,959 9,938,444 Lansing Detroit (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 15 Years (Repeat Offenders: Life in Prison) 13) Minnesota 79,548 4,919,479 St. Paul Minneapolis (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $3,000.00 Fine 14) Mississippi 47,234 2,844,658 Jackson Jackson (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 10 Years 15) Missouri * 68,945 5,595,211 Jefferson City St. Louis (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 1 Year & $1,000.00 Fine 16) North Carolina 48,843 8,049,313 Raleigh Charlotte (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 10 Years & Discretionary Fine 17) Oklahoma * 68,656 3,450,654 Oklahoma City Oklahoma City (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 10 Years 18) South Carolina 30,207 4,012,012 Columbia Columbia (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 5 Years & $500.00 Fine 19) Tennessee 41,154 5,689,283 Nashville Memphis 20) Texas * 262,015 20,851,820 Austin Houston (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: $500.00 Fine 21) Utah 82,076 2,233,169 Salt Lake City Salt Lake City (Misdemeanor) Maximum Penalty: 6 Months & $1,000.00 Fine 22) Virginia 39,700 7,078,515 Richmond Norfolk (Felony) Maximum Penalty: 20 Years @ Alabama`s law does not apply to married couples * Indicates sodomy law applies to homosexuals only www.sodomylaws.org/ |
|
there are laws regarding sodemy? wtf? are there laws about blowjobs or heterosexual intercourse? my goodness, if there are, i hope i haven't violated any of them.... actually, i wouldn't give a crap if i did, nor would the people who participated in those acts with me. Our tax dollars hard at work! |
The proscription of sodomy in the English tradition began in 1533 when King Henry VIII adopted contemporary church doctrine into a system of laws at the time of the English withdrawal from the Catholic Church. Sodomy became both a sin and a crime, since ecclesiastical law recognizes no distinction between the concepts of "sin" and "crime." Sodomy included any form of non-procreative acts including masturbation, oral and anal sex. The original thirteen American colonies derived their laws from the English common law and continued the legal tradition in which sodomy carried the penalty of death. The 1683 Pennsylvania law called sodomy an "unnatural sin" and the East New Jersey law listed it among the "Offenses against God." Continued here. My point was that people "outlaw" things they don't like. I personally don't care to "stuff it in her pooper and post picks". But if thats your thing go ahead AS LONG AS both people are consenting adults in private. I don't advocate engaging in deviant behavior that would cause harm to anyone or spread disease. As far as the AW thing goes, how many here have screamed ( and continue to do so) that the .gov had no place tell them what they can and can't own. How many times have there been posts about how stupid the media, MMM, Brady Campaign etc been cited as being stupid and pushing their "morals" on gun owners. I only used the comparison in the sense that the 1994 AWB and sodomy laws are about control, and telling you what you can and can't do, even in the privacy of your own home. |
Just to answer the original question, yes, there's been at least one. The case involved a heterosexual couple having sex in their bathroom with the window open. A neighbor saw them and videotaped them. The woman gave oral sex to the man, and when they found out about the videotape and screamed at the neighbor, he gave the tape to the cops, who then went after the couple for violating the sodomy laws. I don't recall the state. This was probably in Catherine Kennedy's book on privacy laws, which is quite a good read. |
|
Its still illegal according to the UCMJ. Lots of urban legends in the military about high ranking officers getting busted for it when an MP obsered a man getting a BJ from his wife ect. Ive actually seen people charged with it when the girl they picked up downtown and brought back to the barracks turned out to be underage, and claimed rape when daddy found out she was on post with a troop. |
It's about one group wanting to "control" another group. Period. And yeah, I'd say it's pretty much the same difference. People constantly are wanting to control other people. IMO, the people trying to do the "controlling" need a hobby.... or need to get laid more often... probably both 
|
| Sodomy laws were often used when there was nto enough evidence to prosecute someone for rape. The defendant would plead down to sodomy. In the military, many people were convicted of sodomy when the JAG couldn't prove forcible sex. After the sodomy laws were overturned in Bowers v. Hardwick, the military was very worried that a lot of convictions would be overturned against scumbags that were too hard to catch. Luckily those cases haven't worked them selvesup to the Court of Appeals for the armed forces. Regardless, they will still be upheld due to the Bowers language discussing long-standing institutions. The SCOTUS was probably talking abou tthe Military. |
| If two people are of consenting legal age and in private, hetero, homo, whatever, who cares. The gov't should not intrude into private lives. I draw the line there. I am against homosexuals getting married, but if they wanna live together go ahead. The beauty of sex and love making is variety even if it includes sodomy. If two people believe it's wrong it is also OK..... |
You are guilty of the analytical crime of anachronism - the imposition or imputation of contemporary knowledge and mores to those who lived in earlier times. At the time that prohibitions against sodomy became part of the law, there wasn't any "group" to control. Constitutional homosexuality was almost entirely unknown until relatively recently. What was being addressed when anti-sodomy laws came into being was not the behavior of an "out-group," but "aberrant" behavior by members of a largely homogeneous "in-group." There was no known "homosexual community;" for the most part, there were no known homosexuals as we understand the term today (i.e., persons whose innate sexual desire is directed toward people of the same gender). There were (from the perspective of the people making the laws) members of the larger community who were eccentric, willful, or wicked and who therefore engaged in homosexual or non-reproductive heterosexual behavior or bestiality - contrary to what was generally (in fact, almost universally) understood to be the actors' nature. Again, at the time these prohibitions came into being, there was no group to be controlled, any more than there is presently a "group" of speeders, thieves, or litterers to be cointrolled. Sodomy (and by implication homosexuality) was at the relevant time believed to consist entirely of nonstandard behavior; the behavior was deemed injurious to the participant and to the larger community and was therefore prohibited. If you want proof that the modern (and annoying) concepts of group identity, group grievance, and group oppression has no place in this discussion, you need look no further than the fact that sodomy laws have always addressed and resulted in prosecutions for non-homosexual conduct. Was the oppressed "group" Guys Who Like Getting From Their Wives, Women Who Like to Receive Oral Sex, Men Who Love Sheep, Women Who Find Anal Penetration Pleasant, or Homosexuals? The group vs group analysis is hogwash. |
|
VA had a nasty court case about 10 years ago...seperated couple, wife lures hubby over on pretense of a reconciliation...let him head up the chocolate raceway. Next day, she files charges, saying she was anally raped. Bad juju for him...I don't recall how the whole thing ended up, but he was looking at mucho jail time for the forced sodomy charge, like 20 years. Like anything that happens in the bed room between consenting adults, the .gov ain't got NO business with it. |
Well, it didn't take long for the anti-religion zealots to make their usual appearance..... |
No, sorry. Religious types (group 1) wanting to control the non-religious, or different religious group - (group 2). I didn't say it was first used to try to control "queers"... and if you think that queers didn't exist until the 1900's... well, I can't help your being ignorant.... I DO think we are a larger % of the population now, but that's mostly, IMO, due to overpopulation of the planet. So NOT GUILTY! The group who group #1 was attempting to control was whomever liked... well... that practice.... whomever they might be. Pewople who wanted to "enjoy" sex I suppose. Just `cause they are not a "recognizable" identified group doesn't mean you cannot place them in that group. Kinda like what does a radical lesbian liberal-leaning Libertarian have in common with a conservative straight male redneck Republican? They both like "shooting", they both believe in the 2nd Amendment. Many would then lump both of us into a "pro-gun owners" group. Does this mean both I and said redneck are IN a recognized "group" together? Maybe, maybe not. Yet are the anti's attempting to oppress both of us? YES!
|
Off you go, Kacer. Back to reading camp. |
The big issue with the Texas case was that it was only selectively enforced against gay people. Regardless of my beliefs on homosexuality, it's wrong to apply the legal standard differently just to gays. Texas has other similar blue laws. The other big one is against owning "adult novelties," a.k.a. sex toys. They busted a lady named Joanne Webb up here in DFW, in the town of Burleson to be exact, for running one of those businesses where they did tupperware-like parties but with sex toys. She was busted and charged with intent to distribute, a felony. After the sodomy case between the gay guys was thrown out by the SCOTUS, the municipality that charged her also dropped the charges. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
Kacer, it's clear that you understood little or nothing of my post. I am entirely satisfied that the shortcoming is yours. |
|
This law has been usefull in the fight against prostitution. A class 6 felony is only one step above a class 1 misdemeanor.....so it usually gets plead down when they work out a deal. It would be nice if there was some sort of a "marriage exemption" though § 18.2-361. Crimes against nature. A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B. B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony. (Code 1950, § 18.1-212; 1960, c. 358; 1968, c. 427; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 285; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 450.)
|
|
ART. 125. SODOMY (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. |
