A few years ago I learned that the only conviction under anti-sodomy statute in Louisiana was of a married couple. I think sodomy was loosely defined as "unnatural acts", which really doesn't clarify anything.
Zoe: I thought you wanted to spend more time off-ship this visit. Wash: Out there is seems like it's all fancy parties. I like our party better. The dress code is easier and I know all the steps.
'Shindig'
Natter 31 But Looks 29
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
-t - Dec 29, 2004 9:03:04 am PST #1247 of 10002
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Matt the Bruins fan - Dec 29, 2004 9:04:22 am PST #1248 of 10002
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
I'm now wondering what exactly a married couple did with each other to get brought up on charges, and how the authorities happened upon the incident.
§ ita § - Dec 29, 2004 9:05:05 am PST #1249 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
American Heritage defines sodomy thusly:
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Which pretty much sums up how I'd thought it was defined, but not how I used the word (which was just to mean anal sex).
That definition makes people look really petty, doesn't it. And then I found an interesting piece on how the Sodom debacle wasn't that gay -- including details on when S&G became about homosexuality.
Cass - Dec 29, 2004 9:05:56 am PST #1250 of 10002
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
(not sure where you are Cass)I'm in California, which is freakishly big for a state. So Texas looks big, as befits their image, not that size matters. The rest of the country looks ... less big.
Just finished a sodomy discussion with the parents (rarely has the phrase "no, I'm not going into details" been used so often, and with such vehemence on my part).Oh dear.
tommyrot - Dec 29, 2004 9:06:48 am PST #1251 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
as in the somewhat antiquated epithet "sodomite"
I prefer the term "gomorrahite" myself.
(Not sure if that's the correct spelling....)
lisah - Dec 29, 2004 9:07:16 am PST #1252 of 10002
Punishingly Intricate
And voila! one more state I had visited.
I grew up in (north) Wilmington, DE where we could drive to 3 different states in 1/2 hour or less. My Texas cousins couldn't comprehend that at all. Many of them had never left the state.
§ ita § - Dec 29, 2004 9:11:38 am PST #1253 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Oh dear.
It really could have gone less well. And they totally understand reading texts slashily even I didn't have the energy to go into the aspect of writing it. I think that's so charming, for a bougie older Jamaican couple.
-t - Dec 29, 2004 9:14:58 am PST #1254 of 10002
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
I'm now wondering what exactly a married couple did with each other to get brought up on charges, and how the authorities happened upon the incident.
Details were not revealed. I think it was part of their agreeing to plead guilty that teh specifics wouldn't be released. I wondered, too. And now I can't remenmber where I picked up this tidbit of information.
Shoot, can't read the article on Sodom through work's net nanny. It's my husband's contention that S&G were destroyed mainly for being inhospitable to strangers.
Fred Pete - Dec 29, 2004 9:16:10 am PST #1255 of 10002
Ann, that's a ferret.
A while back (ten or fifteen years?) the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for states to enforce sodomy laws on homosexuals but not heterosexuals.
Um, sort of. That case involved two gay men, and the Supremes decided not to address heterosexual issues.
sarameg - Dec 29, 2004 9:16:56 am PST #1256 of 10002
It really could have gone less well.
Well... good?
Some conversations I will never have with my parents. Thankfully.
I spent a lot of my holiday making strangled appalled noises at some of the things my SIL chose to share with me. I think she was doing it on purpose. I'm ok with my parents having sex, but for whatever reason, I really don't want to know when it comes to my brother. I just ....ok. I need to go scrub my brain after just mentioning it.