I got nothing better to do. Kind of allows me to understand the insanity a bit more. Also, I'm a bit of a glutton for it.
Conservative, I think you still misunderstand. The act itself wasn't the target so much as the context and detail of description in a conversation that didn't warrant it. He could've described other acts, like a rimjob or creampie, various sorts of sexual acts and it would've still been considered disgusting. The fact that it's a homosexual act is incidental.
Bottom line, it's the appropriateness of the comment itself, not the specific content in question
lkeithlu didn't call homosexuality disgusting. Reading in context of the discussion, you'd see that the thing called disgusting was focusing on the sexual act for arguing why homosexuality is wrong.
Historically, sodomy probably focused on anal sex, but other acts have fallen under the definition, either legally or morally. But merely because there's a precedence for one definition doesn't suggest that the term should be exclusively defined as such. It's as antiquated a word as "negro" or even calling a black person a "colored" person.
The fact that you insist on using that in contrast to other terms that work just as well with the same amount of syllables (anal sex or even buggery, as British as the word is) makes me think that the problem isn't the dictionary so much as that the common usage defined by Webster is primarily religious in nature and thus isn't focusing on the act and its moral nature, but the association to a morally repulsive place in the bible.
I won't even get into the discussion of whether homosexuality was the sin, since the Bible itself even focuses more on another horrible act perpetrated, but suffice to say, I don't think this discussion can go anywhere when you are stuck in the 18th century in terms of sexual morals.
I don't know why I'd even bother trying to analyze this insanity you're spouting. Homosexuality and sodomy are not identical, since the latter is an umbrella term. I don't think anyone would advocate having sex with an animal.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are basic variations on human sexuality, not unlike the other major forms we can enumerate: nonsexuality and bisexuality, among some other small groups. Love between two mature adults not sharing biological relation and not being raised in proximity to each other is hardly any of your business, especially since heterosexuals have far more issues in terms of maintaining marriage and having healthy marital relations overall.
And why is this? As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. Straight people, myself included, have just taken for granted that they can get married and no fault divorce has made it worse.
The logical fallacy is stunning, not to mention no one said what you are quoting us as stating. The disgusting nature of some sex acts does not follow to all sex acts being justified. And homosexual acts are not the same as what would be considered "kinky" acts that aren't common, compared to anal intercourse, which is not unique to homosexual men, as you seem to believe.
Clearly conservatives, particularly paleocons like yourself, seem to lack reading comprehension skills. lkeithlu didn't say homosexuality was disgusting, but the comments generalizing it as such by Mr. Orr.
You think anal sex is disgusting, look into commonly heterosexual practices, even if they are kinks, and you'll find far more stomach churning practices. Though it does seem odd that you're so concerned with people's sex lives
You're comparing men from the 60s and 70s to gay men growing up now, it's like dinosaurs and lizards. The times were different and many men still felt closeted and behaved in sexually unsafe ways. To generalize about the entire gay community because of this is ridiculous.
Your tax dollars don't support any sexual behavior of consenting adults. You do know anti sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional just 10 years ago? Seems odd it would take that long in history to find out that private sexual acts between adults are protected regardless of if people agree with them morally/religiously.
There's a marked difference, albeit a bit subtle, between HIV and AIDS. You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, though it commonly develops, from what I can recall. I could be wrong, though.
Irresponsible sexual behavior is your beef, which I can agree with. But it's not unique to homosexuals, especially in this day and age. No fault divorce doesn't help marriage either, does it?
The truth can be exaggerated with statistics and studies like what's being referenced. Even if there are promiscuous gay men, it doesn't reflect on the behavior of all gay men. And men who have sex with men doesn't equal exclusive homosexuals
First off, I think the number of polygamists and polyamorous groups are miniscule by comparison to gay couples. And I'm almost willing to bet that they don't care or want marriage recognition by the state, either because they think their religious condoning of the practice is good enough or in the case of polyamory, they don't want marriage rights to begin with.
And don't even try to make a serious argument that someone can marry a roller coaster...Or even use it as part of your argument in general
If you want to be fair on this issue: both morally and fiscally, then just negate the benefits. That way, you can't complain that it's discriminatory in terms of "partnership" definitions and no one has their moral feelings hurt.
Or we could try something a bit less extreme: balance out the details of these benefits across the basic terms of "partner" in a strictly romantic sense and explain to the contentious religious that they aren't being forced to accept it as moral even if their tax dollars are involved, since that is a basic duty and not a compulsion based on coercion.