06-24-2003, 04:46 PM
Two things here.
First, the definitions that are listed in dictionaries are changeable. They are modified over time as the editors include newly acceptable definitions for words.
In Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 , Sodomy is defined as "Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery", a pretty wide definition until you hit "buggery". However, Webster's uses a circular definition for "buggery". A pretty useless definition.
In WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University, Sodomy is defined as "anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman", which is pretty specific, and a more useful definition.
Second, my real point is that the dictionary definition is irrelevant. If you are going to consider the ramifications of sodomy in a relationship from a legal standpoint, you need to consider the legal definition of the term in the jurisdiction involved.
A quick search of the legal definition of "sodomy" for different jurisdictions returns a wide variety of definitions, up to the extreme where sodomy is considered to be anything which is not purely penis and vagina contact.
What it really means is that some folks will make it mean whatever they want, according to their own moral perspective. Such a ruling seems less like a Law, and more like a Dictate.
As one of the greatest politicians of the last century stated, "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation". They followed through with that principle in Canada in 1969, with the repeal of the sodomy laws.
First, the definitions that are listed in dictionaries are changeable. They are modified over time as the editors include newly acceptable definitions for words.
In Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 , Sodomy is defined as "Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery", a pretty wide definition until you hit "buggery". However, Webster's uses a circular definition for "buggery". A pretty useless definition.
In WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University, Sodomy is defined as "anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman", which is pretty specific, and a more useful definition.
Second, my real point is that the dictionary definition is irrelevant. If you are going to consider the ramifications of sodomy in a relationship from a legal standpoint, you need to consider the legal definition of the term in the jurisdiction involved.
A quick search of the legal definition of "sodomy" for different jurisdictions returns a wide variety of definitions, up to the extreme where sodomy is considered to be anything which is not purely penis and vagina contact.
What it really means is that some folks will make it mean whatever they want, according to their own moral perspective. Such a ruling seems less like a Law, and more like a Dictate.
As one of the greatest politicians of the last century stated, "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation". They followed through with that principle in Canada in 1969, with the repeal of the sodomy laws.