I decided to take off on a tangent with today's strip [goats.com] out of deference to all the folks that will be too busy settin' off fireworks to get oon the internet. Also, I think the eradication of a particularly sinister form of opression is a good topic for Independence Day.

I hope that everyone understands that this is a pro-sodomy strip -- there was some thought that people might not understand that, as it does not straight-out say that, but has the gall to expect you to think a bit.

I think sodomy is a terrible word to describe the act of love and/or screwin' between two people that love each other and/or met at a bar. The etymology alone is enough to make me think that we need an alternate term. What term would you suggest?

Well since it's based on a Bible passage [gospelcom.net] and the dictionary has accepted it, we're stuck. It is tacky but I don't know why we just don't call it sex.
And if you're doing it in private, I don't WANT to know about it. Have your fun but don't tell me.

I've always found there was something quaint and charming (like almost everything else they do) about the British version - "Buggery".

"Cornholing" has a certain appeal as well, at least as word. But I don't know enough about the etymology of that to say.

If I weren't so lazy today, I'd spend some time doing some real analysis on the topic. But I can't really be bothered to get off my ass, sorry.

In Response to Rich (#7091):

Hopsitality these days just isn't what it used to be. Have a gander at an excerpt from that passage:

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.

  Oh, and people do just call it "sex". At least, people I know that have no issues with it. "Sodomy" and "buggery" etc. tend to be used by people with a negative attitude. Except when used for comedic value ;-)

How about "Pissing off Scalia". I know its clunky, but maybe anal/oral sex needs an eternal link to our beloved High Court Justice.

"Butt sex." Simple, clear, causes fundamentalist Christians to turn grey... what more could you possibly ask for?

"Dropping the Soap" is what me an' da boys called it back in the pen. Boy I sure miss dem guys.... Gets to be nowadays that I can actually walk straight again, so maybe I don't miss 'em quite that much.

Seriously though, I got all misty-eyed for a second thinking that maybe Diablo was serious and Freddy Mercury had come back from the dead.

Well Jon, the abolishment of the term Sodomy has been a long time coming. Originally, during the middle ages, the term "Sodomy" was used to describe anything other than the missionary position enjoyed by a married couple.

What does this mean?

Simple, Catholics are amazingly uptight. Not to offend anyone but who comes up with a term like sodomy that covers almost everything sexual except the one thing that the church grudgingly accepts?

Although I do have to admit that your comment about no hole going unsodomized for a thousand years was reminiscent of the Michael Jackson joke a few months ago. Disturbing and funny mixed into an alarmingly ambigious concoction and served cold with a slice of lemon.

In Response to Yoshi (#7177):

but who comes up with a term like sodomy that covers almost everything sexual except the one thing that the church grudgingly accepts?

The answer is in my avitar.

In Response to the_fetus (#7180):

Actually, the answer is in my 'avatar', but who really cares about that 'spelling' stuff?

In Response to the_fetus (#7180):

"The answer is in my avitar"

That explains your avatar's smile... Ol' Jesus is getting some, "Enchilada Style!"

Oh, you didn't mean "in" literally.

My bad.

In Response to baboo4 (#7100):

Just watch out for all that nasty Santorum that you're likly to be left with! May I suggest a towel?

...

...Or perhaps a cigarette?

In Response to mjfgates (#7104):

How about 'Making the hairy backed monkey of love'? :)

Fundamentalist Christians - A good reason for the extinction of our species

In Response to GigGleR (#7294):

Hi, Everybody!
I am new to the forums, but have read all the goats.com comics so far.... i think not quite sure. Anyways, I always thought "Probin" was a good name for it!

In Response to osiris (#7347):

This is a very inauspicious first post, and it bodes poorly for your future here.

Particularly, it is somewhat disheartening to find out that you are confused on if you've read all the goats.com comics so far. Everything that is in the archive is everything that has been published - except for the Premium membership additional content.

But welcome in, anyway.

Maybe i was alone in my thoughts on the ruling [cnn.com]. I didn't see the supreme court saying that sodomy was a great thing or a horrible thing. What i thought they ruled on was that if you want sodomy, and want it in your home, then you are free to do that. It also carry's over to if you want to curse all day long in front of children [freep.com], and do that in your home it's okay too. It was a ruling on privacy in my opinion and I only saw sodomy as the catalyst to get the repeal started.

I think that fundamentalists (both sides - religious and non-religious) saw the word sodomy in this and fluffed it up to make it appear more important while missing the overlying intent of the ruling.

If sodomy were (as it was) banned from your homes, what is there to keep laws from being enacted saying that you can't have french fries in your home or watch anti-american movies. Or listen to anti-law enforcement songs or (insert possible feared/misunderstood actions here). You have to read past the media hype and see that the law had originally been about sodomy but that it's scope was potentially much more and that striking it down was more beneficial to the american people as a whole rather than a subset of it's population.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#7358):

Just reading that whole report... are there really people that tight arsed (excuse the pun) when it comes to peoples bedroom affairs, or are they just putting on a show?

I mean, one of the anti-sodomy guys in the cnn article (I think it was that Scalia fella) said "I've got nothing against homosexuals" yet he's against sodomy? it doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, the bum sex the only difference between girlboys and boyboys.

Or am I wrong in some way? Do boyboys spread diseases or something?

In Response to unFalln (#7371):

As far as I can see, the bum sex the only difference between girlboys and boyboys.

Well, that and a superior fashion sense.

In Response to solar (#7388):

Actually, it's just the fashion sense.

You see, a boy and a girl also can have bumsex. If you need a visual aid, send me $29.99 + S/H, and I can 'enlighten' you...

In Response to mcgrue (#7417):

Well, yes, this is true, but a boy and another boy have little other penetrative choice. My point was if boyboys can't have bum sex, what other forms of sex do they have?

which brings me to another point, what does Scalia think of oral sex, and how does this fit in with the laws?

In Response to unFalln (#7423):

Little choice?! Why sir, the body is full of orifaces and crevaces! Also, we can fold to create even more!

Next time you hear someone exclaim "Oh, my virgin ears," now you can snicker knowingly.

In Response to mcgrue (#7426):

I've seen some loose sphincters in my time (just to clarify, I mean pictures on the internet, haven't had the... umm... 'pleasure'... of seeing them first hand), but the thought of a loose earhole... it just doesn't look right.

You've triggered a part of my imagination I didn't really want to unfold.

In Response to unFalln (#7429):

goats.cx

::snickers::

in most states that had sodomy laws, oral sex was considered sodomy as well

In Response to unFalln (#7423):

It actually touches on that in the article [cnn.com] Oral sex is usually categorized as sodomy. Anything other than missionary is usually considered sodomy. Thus, sodomy doesn't mean homosexual, it seems to cover any alternative means of sexual behavior between any combination of man/woman/beast.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#7483):

Clarification: As I understand it, the purpose of anti-sodomy laws is a combination of Puritanical beliefs on the purpose of sex, the evils of pleasure, and the fear of illigitimacy. It comes down to the difference between procreation and recreation. Procreation is good, recreation is bad. But then, these were the Puritans... "Our ancestors. People so uptight the English kicked them out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to say 'Get the fuck out. Take your pimp shoes and GO!'" (Robin Williams).

So, dependent on the strictness of the law and its enforcement, any form of sexual contact is considered sodomy if not intended towards producing a child. Of course, by that definition, those who are barren cannot have sex at all, since they have no hope of producing a child. This is a very dismal outlook on life. No hummers, bj's, quickies in the park, feasting down south, tapping the ass, or for that matter, any sex with a condom or other contraceptive? Why go on living? I mean celibacy due to choice I can respect... if not comprehend. Celibacy due to lack of options I can empathize with. But celibacy due to rule of law? Fuck that!

All of this goes back to your favorite Parochial School text book and mine...Thats right! The Ol' Old Testament. In my personal favorite book, the ever exiting Leviticus, The Lawd passes down some Sexx Laws. Taken in context, these laws (including bans on homosexuality, masturbation, anything not done with the intent of procreation) were created because of lack of medical knowledge (how could the writers know that men grow more sperm) and to seperate the Israelites from the polytheistic surrounding tribes. Homosexual rites were practised in cults in the near east, so to distinguish Judaism (and keep in mind all of this also then applied to Christianity)from these "heathen cults" homosexuality was outlawed. The problem is, the context for the laws was eventually lost. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars alike decided that these laws were a judgement of homosexuals themselves thus prompting the puritanical attitudes of our pimp shoe wearing forbarers. Happily, attitudes about homosexuality and non vaginal sex in the mainstream have changed for the most part.
Hope that helps...