Where are the anti-sodomy laws still on the books?

As to the issue of deviance in terms of religion and law; there are no laws specifically against homosexuality. There are laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying, but nothing that keeps an individual from maintaining a homosexual relationship.

In saying that religion and law should remain seperate; I think people are arguing that, apart from the laws that are currently on the books, the government shouldn't be forming new laws based on religious norms.

That's not an artful way of describing it, but you get my point.

My home state still has laws against sodomy. Heck, there are some states that still have laws making fornication, adultery, and "shacking up" illegal. Also, you do realize that those types of laws are still in effect for acts done in public right? Lawrence only protects people in the privacy of their homes. If they commit these acts in public, all bets are off. However, my home state has still prosecuted individuals for acts of sodomy since Lawrence. The issue is that no one has challenged the prosecutions.

I would venture to say that laws concerning sodomy and gay marriage ARE two examples of laws that, while they may not prohibit homosexuality in the literal sense, the focus is to put a significant damper on activities that are of significance to the homosexual community.

As far as the government creating new laws, I dare say that even new laws are going to still be based on religious norms. I'm sure for every new law they create, you can find a basis for it in the Bible. Even laws that provide that you must follow the government's leadership have some basis in the Bible.

Ok...I was thinking of the anti-sodomy laws purely in the private context. I'll admit that I haven't looked enough into the issue as far as public sodomy, although I'd wonder why that didn't fall under some larger public indecency act covering all public sexual acts.

They probably do.

It's also probably worth nothing in the context of the thread that Clinton's DADT really doesn't deal with orientation or private behavior. It seems to me to deal with requiring people to be closeted.

Sure, it holds homosexuals to a different standard than heterosexuals, but it also doesn't seek to evaluate orientation or private behavior and act on it.

ETA: Nevermind, a mere suspicion of behavior means that a supervisor can "ask" and investigate, so I think I was way too optimistic. It definitely seeks to evaluate orientation in cases where there's some reason to be suspicious. A quote from wikipedia: "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."

Counselor, you're now admitting (under Internet oath) that you currently find Madonna attractive, even though she looks like an awkward manly personal trainer-slash-skeleton in an Olde Timey doctor's office.

Would you like to refresh your memory from your deposition notes, or is this actually your testimony here?

Isn't this the classic "correlation does not imply causation" issue? Also contextual testing?

Whoops, withdrawn. I would like to review my deposition testimony, as I would hope it is inconsistent with my current statements.

If you used your right hand, it falls under work product rules . . . get it? Because the left hand would be the "stranger"? See, this is how interesting I find this troll thread.

Yes and yes.

I feel like I am in a room full of lawyers! :rolleyes:

if a company made a policy (in writing) against hiring blacks, do you think that it would be in the news?

Only if it included a display case with a monkey book. :p