Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN World using the term "sodomite" WTF?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 06:24 PM
Original message
CNN World using the term "sodomite" WTF?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/02/chaplain.abuse.ap/
"Diocese bars sodomite chaplain"

I think some reporter needs to check the style book because that term is offensive and incendiary. The term sodomy itself is outdated and "sexual assault" is a better one though I know that "sodomy" is the term probably still in the law.

Here are some of the headlines for this story used by other news agencies when I searched on yahoo:

Army Chaplain Sentenced For Sodomizing Troops
Army chaplain gets 5 years for forcible sodomy
Chaplain banned from position after assault charges
Army chaplain gets 5-year sentence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. really interesting use of the term "sodomite"
but what`s really interesting is the reading of ezekiel 16:49-50 where its the inhospitably of the women of sodom that was condemned.the in first century it was jude and josephus that decided sodomites were practitioners of male-male sex."sodomite" is really a fundamental religious word -what year is this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meeker Morgan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Believe it or not ...
... the official charge was "sodomy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-05-05 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Sodomy" is the name of the charge
used in the UCMJ, and is distinct from Sexual Assault.

BTW, "Sodomy" in the UCMJ refers to all forms of oral and anal sex, not merely male-male. As a practical matter, like adultery, it is almost never prosecuted on its own, it is usually charged, if at all, with other, more egregious offenses against the UCMJ. For example, this conviction emphasizes the "forcible" aspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks for the information and clarification
I think my main point is that "sodomy" should be retired as a legal term just as the words "idiot" "moron" "feeble-minded" have been by many states. "Sodomy" is obviously biblically based term and for a long time such statutes have covered consensual and forced acts.

Rolling anal and oral assault into the definition of "sexual assault" would be a progressive step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bammertheblue Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. So by that logic
a woman giving her husband or boyfriend oral sex is also a "sodomite"?
And this is still a LAW??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Arguably, such laws have been overturned as unconstitutional
I believe that was the essence of the Lawrence decision: that laws which target one group of people who commit an act but not others who commit the same act, or laws which are written to apply generally but are applied only selectively, are unconstitutional. Since general "sodomy" laws tend not to be applied generally (such as a woman giving oral sex to a man) but applied selectively (such as a man giving oral sex to a man), the general law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

It would be interesting for a straight couple to be arrested in their own home on "sodomy" charges, just to see how it would play out in court. But I'm not holding my breath that that will ever happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's happened!
"It would be interesting for a straight couple to be arrested in their own home on "sodomy" charges, just to see how it would play out in court."

This is why sodomy laws were so evil:

Miami Herald-Sunday, August 06 1989

Hard-time convicts in the prison yard derive no end of fun comparing their particular crimes to the transgression that landed James David Moseley behind bars 17 months ago.

Moseley, in the midst of a five-year sentence at a state prison outside Atlanta, is doing time for committing oral sex. With his wife.

...

Oral sex, even with a spouse, is a felony in Georgia. And the crime is considered so serious that the state Parole and Pardons Board has ruled that Moseley must serve at least two years of his five-year sentence. Sodomy is so serious that the board decided to keep Moseley incarcerated even as it is forced to prematurely release 3,000 convicted felons from jammed prisons to avoid a federal overcrowding lawsuit.

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. But not since the Lawrence decision declared such laws unconstitutional
Broadly applied, Lawrence overturned a lot of "morality" laws. Other than the Anderson decision in King County*, I am not aware of any judicial decision that has cited Lawrence.


* A Superior Court judge ruled on Anderson et al. v. King County et al. that Washington State's ban on equal marriage violated the state constitution. The Supreme Court heard an expedited appeal in March; a decision is overdue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:24 PM
Original message
See my post 9, if convicted of sodomy straight or gay
I'd say you're a "sodomite" under the definition of the law as it was. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws but some state legislators are still trying to find ways around that decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. See my post 9, if convicted of sodomy straight or gay
I'd say you're a "sodomite" under the definition of the law as it was. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws but some state legislators are still trying to find ways around that decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. Did he turn into a pillar of salt?
B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sodomy is a misnomer anyway. The sin of Sodom was arrogance, gluttony and
not aiding the poor and the needy. Sounds like Republicans are Sodomites!

Ezekiel 16:49 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC