From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 15:48:55 BST
Hi Johnny,
J
> A million acts of sodomy are thwarted every year, and billions more not
even
> attempted, in part because of the state law.
R
Millions and billions of acts of sodomy? Why not trillions and zillions J?
Please don't ask me to provide serious answers to your questions anymore if
this is how you're going to respond to me. You completely made this up out
of nowhere. You have no idea how many acts of sodomy are thwarted by
statute every year. Nobody does. Nobody could. In fact, I'd say given the
historical infrequency of prosecutions for consensual, private sodomy it's
highly unlikely those laws ever really deterred anyone from doing anything.
J
> Keep in mind that sodomy was very rare at the time. I bet my parents
never
> did it, let alone their great grandparents 200 years ago. Is there much
> evidence that people did it back then?
R
huh? In the first sentence here you say it was rare, then in the third you
ask if there's evidence that people did it much (i guess you just made up
that first sentence?). But whatever... yes, there's plenty of evidence that
sodomy (as defined in those days as virtually any non-procreative sex
practice) was relatively common.
J
> You say they were on the books to make rape statutes were effective? I
> think if there was a 19th century case involving rape, they would have
> prosecuted it as rape, and that those cases involving force were just not
> rape but were sodomy (there was no intercourse, or there was sodomy in
> addition to rape).
R
The rape statutes only explicitly covered direct intercourse. The sodomy
statutes were added to make sure that rapists and molesters couldn't slip by
on technicalities. The fact that the sodomy laws were ONLY used in the
context of non-consent prosecutions defeats your idea that it was the
'sodomy' that was the target of the prosecutions... it wasn't, the rape was.
Which is why the evidence laws were carefully structured to make it
virtually impossible for someone to be convicted of consensual sodomy.
J
> At any rate, the framers were content to have laws that hopefully would
> never be enforced on the books of their states, they must have felt they
> served a good purpose and were constitutional. You nor the Majority have
> convinced me otherwise on that count.
R
I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm trying to convince you that
the founders did recognize the constitutionality of sodomy laws, but only
when enforced in cases of non-consent (that's the "good purpose" which you
alluded to). Enforcing them against private, consensual conduct would have
been virtually unheard of to them and so those laws *cannot be used to argue
that the framers would have approved of such enforcements*. If you have any
EVIDENCE that shows otherwise, I would be happy to hear it. But please
don't just make up your own facts to respond with this time.
take care
rick
You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other
man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. - Clarence Darrow
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 15:47:57 BST