Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

[dems4me (Premo)]

Originally posted by itsbob
me.. I'm still a virgin as far as any prosecuter is involved.. and hope they don't have video to prove different!!

I thought if a man had sexual conduct with either boy or girl under the age of 18 was considered stutory rape which carries a heavier fine. Who cares what people do in there bedrooms. It is no one's business.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally posted by itsbob
OK. take it to the next level. A story online about a man(loosely fit term) getting 14 years for having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy, if it was a 14 year old girl he would have received less then two years. The reasoning.. a sodomy law that was on the books.. In this case this is a good thing.. personally think they should castrate him..but alas not my point..

Well if the same act was performed against the female child as the male child wouldn’t the sodomy crime be the same?

Define sodomy.. and this is on the books and still against the law in most states. Sodomy, as defined, is basically anything other then "normal" sex.. ie the missionary position. I know for a fact the Army for one STILL prosecutes this, as in if they want to get you , and have nothing else, they go for the sodomy, adultery every time.. which brings up the definition of adultery.. It doesn't only apply to married people.. it's anyone having sex with another, that you aren't married to.. single person having sex with another consulting single adult, can be guilty of adultery, then if you do anything more then misionary, they have you for sodomy... How many of us are going to jail now?? I mean other then me.. I'm still a virgin as far as any prosecuter is involved.. and hope they don't have video to prove different!!

Sodomy is defined as either copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

And yes, Maryland has sodomy laws as well as unlawful and perverted sex act laws.

As to the UCMJ the relevant Articles are 120 (Rape and Carnal Knowledge) and 125 (Sodomy) and for good measure they will probably hit you with Article 134 (General – catch all). The UCMJ doesn't address adultery as a stand alone crime, but as you can see Carnal Knowledge covers that aspect. In the military, and to the letter of the law, it is unlawful to have sex unless married and then you can only have sex with your spouse.

[Tonio]

Ken, I don't believe that sodomy laws are legally defensible. What's the compelling public interest in making it illegal, no matter what the gender?

From a Biblical standpoint, many scholars believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah story wasn't even talking about sodomy in general. They cite sources that suggest that the townspeople raped male trespessers to punish them and drive them out of town.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, I don't believe that sodomy laws are legally defensible. What's the compelling public interest in making it illegal, no matter what the gender?

From a Biblical standpoint, many scholars believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah story wasn't even talking about sodomy in general. They cite sources that suggest that the townspeople raped male trespessers to punish them and drive them out of town.

Male upon male rape would be one instance that I can think of, or for that matter any forced act regardless of sex.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Ken King
any forced act regardless of sex.

Of course. That should be covered by the rape statutes. But that's not what how many sodomy laws were written, like the one in Virginia. They outlawed it even when it's consensual.

[dems4me (Premo)]

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, I don't believe that sodomy laws are legally defensible. What's the compelling public interest in making it illegal, no matter what the gender?

From a Biblical standpoint, many scholars believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah story wasn't even talking about sodomy in general. They cite sources that suggest that the townspeople raped male trespessers to punish them and drive them out of town.

This is true!! It was about rape and unsolicited sex not the man on man sex. That is why the angles had to protect Lot from them - it was about having sex against people's will.

[otter (Premo)]

Originally posted by dems4me
This is true!! It was about rape and unsolicited sex not the man on man sex. That is why the angles had to protect Lot from them - it was about having sex against people's will.

That puts a different slant on things..

[dems4me (Premo)]

Originally posted by otter
That puts a different slant on things..

Why do you think they needed to have angles there protecting him? From a sunburn or something???

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by dems4me
Why do you think they needed to have angles there protecting him? From a sunburn or something???

Pssst, I think he was making a pun on your spelling of "angels". An "angle" could protect you from sunburn as well if you used it to hold up an awning.

[dems4me (Premo)]

Originally posted by Pete
Pssst, I think he was making a pun on your spelling of "angels". An "angle" could protect you from sunburn as well if you used it to hold up an awning.

pssst... I get it now. The joke I guess was below me. thanks