Jump to content

Talk:Sodomy law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pre-categorized disscussion

[edit]

It should be noted that New Mexico still recognizes common-law offenses and sodomy is a common-law offense. So sodomy was still technically illegal there after repeal until Lawrence, even though no one was ever prosecuted for it during that time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.26.33 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have always wondered, how exactly does one "enforce" this law, without putting a camera in every home...etc. Or is this just supposed to be for after the act has occured?

As I write this in July 2006, the U.S. State of Georgia Code is full of laws referring to the illegality of sodomy. Do a search here for sodomy. It's also illegal in Georgia to have sex of any kind without a marriage license. So apparently the laws are staying on the books to scare people. http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=1-1-1

Needs description of sodomy laws in the US military.

The King James Version omits the word only, which weakens the "contradicted by Ezekiel" argument:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. -- KJV, Ezekiel 16

I think the paragraph should be re-ordered: give the "traditional" intepretation first, since it explains the connection between Sodom and sodomy. Next, explain the view that Ezekiel contradicts that interpretation. --Ed Poor

Should the section on sodomy laws in the seperate US states be removed, or at least given a new introduction, given LvT? --Dante Alighieri 10:55 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've got a problem in translating this article into Chinese, i am not sure what does , like, "5 years/$2000" mean? does that mean "5 yrs in prison, and $2000 fine"? --Gboy 16:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I believe it means a maximum of 5 years in prison and $2000 fine. I'm not sure this pre-2003 information is of sufficient relevance to be worth translating, but that's your call to make. Now that I think about it, however, I'm worried that the list may be a copyright violation. It looks as if the original poster of the list copied it verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from a list that used to appear on the ACLU website. (I later added some updates to it.) The ACLU has a copyright notice on their website. Of course, the underlying information is public. -- Cjmnyc 21:59, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thank you! well, yeah, the Supreme Court has made all the sodomy law invalidated in U.S., but i just translated this list into Chinese, which i don't want to be deleted! and BTW, r u sure that there is no copyright problem here? --Gboy 15:40, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure that there's no copyright problem. (Are there enough negatives in that sentence?) I think there might be a copyright problem, but I'm not sure. That's why I mentioned it. -- Cjmnyc 22:10, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I think my latest edits have fixed the possible copyright problem. -- Cjmnyc 05:36, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't put an NPOV warning on the whole thing, but implicitly describing homosexuality as a sexual pracitice (i.e., "homosexuality or other sexual practices") may be controversial -- particularly since that entry doesn't. --Calieber 16:31, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I made the sections of various countries' laws into subsections; it reflects a higher standard of article quality and organization. Also, I decapitalised "Sodomy" in a few places. Makaristos 02:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Homosexual Politians (preserved here)

[edit]

I removed the following paragraph (list?) of homosexual politians, as it is a little far reaching to be placed under this articles title, maybe a List of sodomists in the legal and political profession (Tongue in cheeck there).

An increasing number of politicians have publically declared their homosexuality, bisexuality, or have participated in homosexual acts. Including, Former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo during John Majors's term. An openly gay politician and gay rights activist, David Norris, sits in the Irish Senate, while the current and previous Presidents of Ireland, Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson were founders for the Irish Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform, which led to decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Republic of Ireland. In France, the mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, had already publicly come out as gay when he was elected. In the German capital Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, was elected mayor after outing himself as homosexual. Five Canadian MPs are openly gay (two New Democrats, a Bloquiste, and two Liberals including one cabinet member.) There have been various US politicians who have served as openly gay, including Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts.
…Guy M… (soapbox) 22:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Then, is there a reason why Singapore and Sweden are after United Kingdom and Unated States in what seems to be a list in otherwise alphabetical order? (Peter Sjöberg 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

UAE

[edit]

Does the UAE still punish homosexuality by death? Or does it differ by the emirates? WhisperToMe 02:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]
Sodomy laws have been abolished since the early 1990s in the People's Republic of China. Yet there is no clear statute towards consenting parties above the age of 18. If someone under 18 is involved, the adult partner will be prosecuted. In a notable case in 2002, a man who had anal intercourse with a teenager was sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

I'm a bit confused what this means. Specifically, what does the no clear statute mean? If there are no sodomy laws, then I would assume there should be no clear statute.

Also, the issue of one partner below the age of consent. Are there any laws which differentiate based on sexual act? I.e. do the laws provide for harsher penalties if anal sex is involved? Is the age of consent different depending on sexual act? And finally, although this is much harder to establish, is there any clear evidence that it is treated worse by the police and/or the courts if anal sex is involved? If the answer to all 3 is no, then it's irrelevant.

Nil Einne 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US sodomy laws / "primarily intended"

[edit]

Regarding the insertion of the clause "laws primarily intended to outlaw homosexual acts" in the sentence "Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction." : (1) The clause doesn't read well as inserted, which is why it caught my eye. (2) It's inaccurate & oversimplified here -- it is not true that the laws were "primarily intended to outlaw homosexual acts"; they were primarily intended to outlaw "sodomy" which was defined to include a lot of things, including homosexual acts, but different legislators had different "intents". The whole point about the US is that there is no one single intent; it was state-by-state, and this clause is a gross oversimplification. (3) The clause is redundant here, because the top of the article explains the nuances regarding sodomy laws, including related terms and how sodomy and related terms are used to mean different things at various times and places. Since the top captures the nuance better and at greater length, it's a mistake to include in the US section a redundant version of a shortened and deceptively simple clause. --LQ 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for renaming

[edit]

Interested editors please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 16#Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality. — coelacan talk — 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World map

[edit]

There should be a map showing the laws by country. Zazaban 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--There is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png - Diskill

That's now File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg, but relates to laws on homosexuality, which does not quite fit the scope of this article. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "Homosexuality laws of the world"

[edit]

While testing all the interwikis from the page Homosexuality laws of the world, and clicking back to English, some other languages seem to be about what is written here in Sodomy laws. So there is a mess up in the interwiki first of all.

Secondly, the article is simmular to Homosexuality laws of the world. The information in the section of f.ex. Iceland can be merged into Gay rights in Iceland.

If noone opposes my remark, Ill begin to fillup the "Gay rights in ..." articles with the information provided here. The definition of "sodomy law" will be listed as a section in Homosexuality laws of the world. 亮HH 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of LGBT studies

[edit]

Why is this article part of LGBT studies? Sodomy laws effect heterosexuals just as much as homosexuals, heterosexual couples have anal and oral sex too, this shouldn't be solely associated with homosexuals and bisexuals, it seems discriminate. 207.144.80.131 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Kobol[reply]

It seems to me that sodomy, and laws regarding sodomy in particular, would indeed be pertinent to a WikiProject dealing with gay-related articles. That this article is tagged as being part of that project doesn't imply that the project is therefore, suddenly, the sole owner of the article. That seems to be something you might be confused about. --Mal 04:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is right, it seems "Mel" is the confused one. This article is poorly written and even more poorly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being associated with a Wikiproject doesn't mean anything more than people interested in that topic are interested in this article. WikiProject LGBT Studies is interested because sodomy laws have been used to outlaw male or female homosexual acts, or both, and have been a significant factor in LGBT history. It doesn't mean only people interested in that topic are interested in this article, which is also why it is associated with more than one WikiProject, including the more general WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buggery in UK still illegal?

[edit]

The article states: Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982.

Is it the case that anal sex between a man and a woman, married or unmarried, is still theoretically illegal? The new laws made it anal sex legal between adult males specifically, yeah? If so, should this not be included in the article? --Mal 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sodomy was legalised by consenting parties in private over the age of eighteen by the Sexual Offences Act 1956, regardless of gender. Homosexual sex had many more restrictions place on what constituted private and who could be present. Few people seem to remember that heterosexuals can commit sodomy as well, and I wouldn't imagine it was really something that got prosecuted by the 1950s, so I guess it doesn't occur to people writing about it to mention it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to clarify then: anal sex between a man and a woman was legalised in the UK after 1956. Meanwhile anal sex between two men continued to be illegal in England and Wales until 1967, in Northern Ireland until 1982 and in Scotland until 1980? --Mal 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like consenting sodomy between men was legalised in 1956 - but they put such restrictions on what determined "private" that it was meaningless. And the fact that such restrictions did exist effectively criminalised homosexuality, which is what everyone refers to. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I last investigated it (a long time ago, admittedly), it appeared that heterosexual anal intercourse was still a capital offence in the Australian Capital Territory. Reason being, The Federation of Australia inherited British law as it then was, in 1901. Various Australian states then went on to change things eventualy, but the ACT (being legally outside of the states of Australia), although changing its laws to allow homosexual acts fairly early on, never specifically legislated to legalise heterosexual buggery. If anyone knows otherwise, please write a correction here. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buggery between a man and a woman was illegal until 2001. 31.52.255.117 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source, please? As it says above "No, sodomy was legalised by consenting parties in private over the age of eighteen by the Sexual Offences Act 1956, regardless of gender." 2.28.151.144 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To someone more knowledgeable then Sethie

[edit]

(and committed) :)

There appears to be a lot of overlay between Homosexuality laws of the world and sodomy laws. Sethie has no sense of how to connect the two or maybe merge the two and it seems like there is some possibility here. Sethie 06:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved referencing structure

[edit]

I've just sent all of those direct links down into the notes list. If anyone objects to this, please contact me. Samantha Pignez 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unverified statement

[edit]

I've cut the following sentence from the United States section:

"By the last quarter of the 20th century, 47 out of 50 states had repealed any specifically anti-homosexual-conduct laws, and 37 had repealed all sodomy laws."

As written, the article does not explain what "anti-homosexual-conduct laws" are; and the wikilink around those words simply takes the reader to the Homophobia article, which does not mention such laws. If someone wants to explain what those laws are, as distinct from sodomy laws, and verify with a citation to a reputable source, be my guest.Textorus (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for sodomy laws?

[edit]

The opening section says "Contemporary supporters of sodomy laws argue that there are additional reasons for retaining them.", but there are no references for these reasons and no descriptions of them within the article. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

[edit]

Poland actually penalised homosexuality until 1932, so the article is wrong about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.70.185 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Actually the bills against homosexuality existed in Poland before loosing its independence in 18th century. You can check it in ,,Historia państwa i prawa polskiego (History of polish state and law) by Juliusz Bardach. It's an academic book for law students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.248.63 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Poles claim that "Forty years after Poland lost its independence, in 1795, the sodomy laws of Russia, Prussia, and Austria came into force in the occupied Polish lands." but there is zero information in the article that Russia and Germany of that time had sodomy laws they supposedly enforced on the poor Poland, that claim has no source to prove it 217.118.64.60 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Sodomy laws in the United States and Sodomy law#United_States are almost the same. Perhaps the other page can be merged into here? 80.235.57.239 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Merged into there rater than here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Chinese supreme court case

[edit]

If anyone is interested, there is a 1957 Chinese supreme court case that ruled that voluntary sodomy between two adults is not illegal. Sodomy was not placed under the "hooligan" statues until after the creation of the first PRC code of laws was created around 1980. A Chinese language explanation of the 1957 case is at:

http://www.law-lib.com/Law/law_view.asp?id=1218

David Straub (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No color-key with US Map?

[edit]

The US map showing dates of repeal of the sodomy laws lacks a color key. All of the blocks next to the key entries are black, with no clue as to which map color they correspond to.

Reader X (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) [reply]

The key appears properly for me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US laws by state as of 2003

[edit]

The subsection "State laws at time of 2003 Supreme Court decision" is a very detailed treatment of US law, out of proportion to the coverage of other countries. It also replicates the detail found at Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#State laws prior to 2003 invalidation.

Wouldn't it make sense to maintain just a single copy of that detailed info at Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#State laws prior to 2003 invalidation and keep just a short summary in this article?

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making my point, someone made a change to one state's entry yesterday, but the note attached made it clear that the editor thought he was changing Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#State laws prior to 2003 invalidation. I'm going to make the change so that we don't need to maintain duplicate info and to make the US portion of this entry consistent with the info provided for all other countries. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First to legalize homosexuality

[edit]

Currently, it is stated in the section about the Soviet Union that they were the 1st. However, according to the page as well, France had it legalized for more than a hundred years before the founding of the Soviet Union. Is there some difference between the situation in France and the Soviet Union? Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sodomy does not equal homosexuality

[edit]

This entire article is poorly written and constantly directs people LGBT articles regardless of whether or not it is relevant. It constantly goes off on tangents about gay rights, age of consent, etc. It should stick to sodomy. This is just plain crap writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beastiality and bible verses

[edit]

Whoever is trying to use the bible as a source for Wikipedia stop. Ya can't just start throwing bible verses around using the bible as a primary source. That's stupid. And also the source that was used for the beastiality bit did not actually say "such acts as beastiality and homosexuality". The only source that says that is Duck Dynasty. Nice try. Ignorant bigoted editors might please exercise a degree of self restrain or integrity. Instead of lying about what sources say or spewing absurd bible verses.Cluelesswonder (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context involved, the Bible is a valid source, because the context is "the New Testament explicitly condemns Sodomy". What better source for what the Bible says is there than the Bible itself? The excerpt is further clarified by the following (sourced) statement that explains that not all Christian sects accept a literal reading of the given passages, so fair balance is maintained. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buggery laws

[edit]

This article starts off by stating

"A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes."

Why sodomy and not buggery? The first such civil law in England was Buggery Act 1533 not the Sodomy Act? -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:COMMONNAME. "Buggery" is almost never used anymore. Buggery law redirects to this article anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an issue of which is the more as there common name is no suggestion or renaming the article. However the term ought to be mentioned in the lead along with sodomy as it is the legal term in British English and as you say the redirect buggery law redirects here. -- PBS (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17:21, 19 February 2015‎ PBS(introduce buggery)
  • 17:21, 19 February 2015‎ This lousy T-shirt (Reverted edits by PBS (talk) to last version by Zumoarirodoka)

Why? -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sodomy law

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sodomy law's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ILGA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Sodomy law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References to "homosexuality" and "LGBTI" need to be removed from this article.

[edit]

This article consistently makes references to "homosexuality". What does "homosexuality" have to do with sodomy laws? Absolutely nothing. Sodomy laws are specifically about MALE sexual practises ONLY. All references to "homosexuality" should be removed from this article as they are completely confusing the issue. For example, smack bang in the middle of the article, someone has inserted a chart showing attitudes on "LGBTI". Those attitudes have absolutely NO BEARING on sodomy laws! "Lesbian sex" has always been regarded as perfectly normal. Almost no one has any moral objection to it, nor has there been any serious legislation against it. So why bring "homosexuality" into the article? It's totally out of place and irrelevant to the issue of MALE sexual practises which this article is supposed to be about. Grand Dizzy (talk) [29 July 2019‎]

As the article says, 44 countries outlaw lesbian sex. It appears that any form of homosexual act might be considered sodomy, depending on the definition in a given jurisdiction. The article also says sodomy laws are rarely used to prosecute heterosexual acts, but sometimes they are, so it seems a merge with LGBT rights by country or territory wouldn't work, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the two scopes. -- Beland (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong as SAR but should be under its own heading

[edit]

Despite repeated r/v by User:Jorge1777, I believe HK should have its own heading despite being a SAR under PRC, as it has a unique standpoint on LGBT rights as discussed at LGBT rights in Hong Kong. Per revert and discuss, this should be discussed here. Despite this, Jorge1777 has WP:3RR. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia incorrect

[edit]

In Indonesia , sodomy Laws ( Prohibition of homosexuality ) is only present in the Aceh territory / province . It's not present in all other areas of Sumatra . A regional Law in the city of Palembang , South Sumatra was abolished in 2020. Now no longer existing. Please limit the red mark in Indonesia to the Aceh territory only , not for the whole areas of Sumatra . Bayu Fuller (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia should be red

[edit]

Please correct this 189.217.86.145 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sodomy law

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sodomy law's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of states

[edit]

61 or 62? 2A01:5A8:307:BBFD:20DC:1D37:CE8:2967 (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sodomy_law&oldid=1247504572"