Without getting too in depth with your comment because I'm still [writing/finding the time to write] a rebuttal for your post: Your perception of a "violation of human rights" is so specious that one could logically reason a person killing himself and getting a blessing from the government. And because said person is a cog in this little society of ours, one could logically extract a blessing for killing others--Especially with the grounds you've set.
My "not good" arguments against sodomy have been met, by you, with circumstancial reasoning. Trying to assert the logicality of one thing simply because another thing doesn't always work the way it is supposed to is flat-out deceitful and fallacious logic--Especially considering the said "one thing" (sodomy) doesn't even begin to resemble the true (biological) nature of "another thing" (vaginal penetration)--Not even in the face of common terminology (even though it's labeled as a "sexual" act, "anal sex" is a flawed phrase in lieu of the act's non-sexual nature). This paired with your "natural" reasoning as well as your attempted repel of my prophecy of a hinderance on society through the mass act of sodomy, which consists of 'The body's gonna get legally hurt anyway. It might as well legally get hurt from an ass-fucking,' you create a ludicrous double standard.
So....yeah. You saying, "You have yet to make a good argument for why sodomy should be banned for public engagement." doesn't mean much to me.
But as I said, I'm not done explaining myself, so I'd advice you hold off your reply until I post my full article.
P.S. You were the first one to bring up the Church.
Edit: Fixed up the wording so the message is more clear.
