From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I think the article needs restructuring. The emphasis on Sodomy should be modern day definitions and connotations, with a section on historical usage. The article currently reads like a religious discussion. On another talk page an editor suggested spawning off a new article called Christian views of anal sex which seems logical. The religious views of Sodomy should be only a small portion of this article. Atom (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale for this article as written is dubious. There already exists an article on sodomy law and an article on anal sex, each of which is superior in quality to this one. The French article, except for its exclusive focus on anal sex, Sodomie would seem to me like an ideal template for this one to copy, yet the link to the French article is being repeatedly deleted from this one. The problem is not that the French article doesn't correspond to this one, but that this one is currently written as a limited overview of the cultural baggage which attaches to the word in certain limited western religious contexts. I am of the opinion that as it stands this article needs to be renamed, and an article broadly paralleling the French one in format, but broadened to include oral sex should use the title Sodomy. In the meantime I oppose deleting the link to the French article.

I couldn't agree more. As far as I am concerned, there should not be an article on Wikipedia called "Sodomy"; it lends validity to the vicious moral condemnation by Christian Fundamentalists and Arab Muslim extremists of sexual activity involving the anus, especially as enjoyed by gay men. The content of the article, particularly its strong indication that "sodomy" is an accurate, unbiased, and descriptive term, do nothing to redeem it. I will have to look through the French version more, but I trust your judgment that it is superior to this sorry mess.

Click here to see the French article in machine translation at google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I mean the first page starts by effectively labely the act as unnatural; an obvious opinion unsupported by any science I have read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has a very strong biblical and religious influence. The bible is not an adequate reference for historic facts and definitions. This article should be modified promptly. This article is of no use for research and information purposes. ARBoughton (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The introductory definition seems extremely odd to me. I have never heard of bestiality generally or oral sex meaning the same thing as sodomy. This may have been so in the past, but as a modern definition it is sorely lacking. Sodomy these days is simply the insertion of a penis into an anus (I suppose an animal's anus would count) and that's it. Furthermore it doesn't matter if it is a male anus or a female anus or whether the people involved are married or not. I'd be very curious to see the definition of sodomy in a recently published edition of the Oxford Dictionary. The inference of a term does evolve over time. The word "queer" may appear in the dictionary in its original context, but it has an entirely different meaning to contemporary ears. (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel it is important to insert the following text to show that the meaning has changed over time from its origional meaning.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the common law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.


I altered the lead to make it clear that the term originally only referred to anal sex, as seen with this edit (also fixed that edit; corrected a publisher field and made the publisher links work). Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), " this is definitely wrong. Sodomy "may refer to", but "is", this is a big no no. Nowhere on this planet, nowadays, "sodomy" equals "oral sex" or "bestiality". This lead definitely HAS to be rewritten. Málåsgløbdük (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Málåsgløbdük, the lead is going by reliable sources. That is what we are supposed to go by, not personal opinions. Going by sources, your "nowhere on this planet" assertion is incorrect. In addition to the sources in the lead, just look at some dictionary sources, like this and this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, were you arguing that nowadays "sodomy" equals oral sex or bestiality and not anal sex? Or were you arguing that nowadays "sodomy" does not equal oral sex or bestiality? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The latter, of course (i.e. nowadays "sodomy" does not equal oral sex or bestiality) Málåsgløbdük (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Circular Citation of Wikipedia by Wikipedia[edit]

The first citation in this article, supporting the definition of sodomy as including anal sex, oral sex and 'bestiality is a reference to the Word IQ website. That website cites the wikipedia article on sodomy law as its source. The sodomy law article provides no reference. I am removing this as a source and tagging it. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes[edit]

Why are there scare quotes in the first sentence?

'Sodomy is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural" sex...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the reason is that any activity voluntarily undertaken by naturally occurring creatures in their natural environment is a natural activity. However the assertion that sodomy is "unnatural" is a common part of the rhetoric behind attempts to forbid it. It's unclear how to define "unnatural" so the assertion "sodomy is unnatural" is not obviously false, hence the scare quotes. TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


"especially between males or between male persons" This makes no sense, unless anal sex between two male animals would be considered sodomy, which seems ridiculous, what has that got to do with a town in the middle east?

This whole article could definitely do with a dispassionate re-writeAdagio67 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 24 September 2011[edit]

Please change "bible" to "Bible" in the second sentence of the article. The word, in this case, is a proper noun and should begin with a capital letter. (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Done AdamCaputo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Medieval attitudes[edit]

I was listening to an article on BBC radio 4 last week and the historian suggested that sodomy was not understood as simply a case of same-sex relations during the medieval period. Rather it was promoted as a concept by Peter Damian and was understood as unnatural sexual relations that did not result in procreation (hence Dante's depiction of sodomites in a sterile envionment in his Inferno). This article focusses on homosexuality a great deal however. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember the name of the programme? Are you sure it's not this one? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was - thanks! This article is rubbish. It needs a rewrite from start to finish. Are we to understand sodomy purely in religious terms? But where do we start? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I started by separating modern religious views from historical ones. The Hebrew Bible must not be presented in terms of modern religionist views but as a document of society in the Levant in antiquity. Modern religious views are of marginal interest, because they are just held privately, "sodomy" not being a criminal offense any longer, anyone is free to hold their own views and definitions. What this article must focus on is the historical period during which sodomy was a well-defined criminal offense. This basically covers the medieval and early modern period. It is the hallmark of an article ruined by religionists fighting anti-religionists that it goes on for unbearable lengths about the Hebrew Bible (of course without any sense of historical depth) and ignores the early modern era completely. At least we have a brief "18th century" section here, but what we need to do is give a coherent account of the changes in legislation throughout Europe during the 15th to 19th centuries: this is what the core of the article should focus on, snippets from the Old and New Testament merely provide the necessary background for this.

--dab (𒁳) 09:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: change "was" to "were" in Legal Usage section[edit]

"was" should be "were" in "Laws prohibiting sodomy was seen frequently in past Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilizations". TimothyFreeman (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012[edit]

Change : In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where a city is almost totally destroyed in punishment for a mob of its inhabitants raping a woman.) TO In the Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman). (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rremoved duplicate. See next post. Pyro121psycho (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012[edit]

Requesting to have the first sentence in the article edited.

As it currently stands, it singles out gay men and beastiality. The beastiality is correct to be pointed out, but it is not correct to single out gay men.

Currently the sentence reads: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to anal sex or other non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts, especially between male persons or between a person and an animal.

The sentence should be read as follows: Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/), refers to non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts such as oral/anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.

This will give a much clearer depiction of what sodomy actually is without sounding like there is an agenda behind this article. My reference for this information is the dictionary. Pyro121psycho (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version phrasing is appropriate. It correctly indicates that while sodomy is not restricted to the subset of homosexual/bestiality acts, in common usage those are the acts typically all that gets referred to as sodomy. It is very rare to see sodomy used to label heterosexual activity, even it is technically applicable. Monty845 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am myself a homosexual, and feel offended by this article for only the reasoning of the opening sentence. It is also for Wikipedia to be accurate. As you state that it is very rare for heterosexual acts to be labled as sodomy is highly inaccurate. It is just that it is a highly acceptable form of sodomy. Please make the changes to the opening sentence as it is a clearly set opinion and not a proven fact. You have not shown anything that actually backs your opinion. Pyro121psycho (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's not a matter of opinion. Read the article about the history of the word. Nevertheless, as there is nothing actually vanadalistic about your sentence, I will do it for you (that's my policy with edit requests, something I just started doing a few minutes ago) - I expect it to be reverted though. Egg Centric 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Rewrite for Christian views[edit]

Technically, the part of this section that notes "traditional interpretation sees the primary sin of Sodom as being homoerotic sexual acts" is incorrect as that it also views similar acts between men and women as also being a sin. Again, as stated above, I suspect that similar problems can be found with the other religious sections. Indeed, legally speaking, many countires (and states) view sodomy (normally associated with anal sex, though also oral sex) as illegal regardless of the biological sex of the participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, also straight relations were considered a sin, but not necessarily sodomia, as it could be adulterium instead. The distinction between the two was basically whether the relations were, in theory, fit for procreation or not. If they were not (for instance same-sex relations, but also manual, oral, or anal intercourse), it was sodomia, if you could use them for procreation, they were adulterium. However, nothing of the aforementioned changes anything about the fact that same-sex activities were considered the gravest of all sins of the flesh, and that it was what most people immediately thought of when they heard the word sodomia or any related vernacular terms. -- (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Different meaning in german language: Germany, Switerzland and Austria[edit]

In german language the word sodomy means sex with animals and has nothing to do with sex between people of the same gender. (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because of the original Medieval ecclesiastical definition of sodomia ever since the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals which conflated same-sex activities with bestiality. A conflation which, in turn, was based on traditional mythological Indo-European paradigms on putatively or factually deviant sexuality way older than the word sodomia itself. Now that same-sex activities are no longer considered the most deviant and abhorrent sexual activity of all, we have other sexual activities filling that role of being conflated with (or simply thought of as "just as evil") as bestiality. -- (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what sodomy means nowadays[edit]

Here is the page on the Oxford English Dictionary site [1].--Jcvamp (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Rewrite for Islamic Views[edit]

As a muslim I find the information provided in the the Islamic view, very derogatory and way off the truth. There is no reference cited and no proof that young men look to have sexual relationship or sodomy with males younger than themselves and that people like anal penetration more in muslim socities because of women segregation. Although there are instances of this happening in some places, however it can not be generalized and be applicable to the entire muslim world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference for the hospitality issue[edit]

I think it would be reasonable in the second paragraph of the "Hebrew Bible" section to replace

Some say[who?] the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the violation of the obligations of hospitality.[citation needed]


Some suggest the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the violation of the obligations of hospitality.[1]

where the note is "<ref>Boswell, pp. 92–98</ref>" referring to a book already in the bibliography.

Scware (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Boswell, pp. 92–98

Between the middle ages and the eighteenth century[edit]

It is bizarre that there isn't a section between medieval and the eighteenth-century. I am proposing a section that deals with Renaissance sodomy, charting the transition from a crime against god to a crime against the person. This would link with the reformation and the devalued significance of church courts. This has been widely researched by hundreds of respected scholars. Also there needs to be more on cultural representations of sodomy, e.g. in Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, for example. 26th Sept 2013. TheoryofSexuality (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original definition of sodomy[edit]

The second source does not use the word only and is limited to talking about North American colonies - there are many other countres that use the English language. The first source uses the word "frequently" - there's a big difference between frequency and only. Pass a Method talk 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I changed the heading of this section from "wp:synthesis" so that the heading is clearer as to what this section is about.
This is the edit Pass a Method is referring to. I added both sources when tweaking the lead, as documented in the #Rewrite section above. Both sources are referring to how the term sodomy originated and expanded; they are (at least the second source) quite clear, from what I see, that the term only referred to anal sex before being expanded to refer to oral sex and other non-procreative sexual activities. Though the second source does not state "only," it stresses that the term did not refer to any other sexual acts until it was expanded to include other non-procreative sexual activities. There are also several pages listed in the citation for the second source. I'm not sure where Pass a Method thinks that the term sodomy originated from, but it did not originate from any of these other countries Pass a Method may have in mind. Also in the #Rewrite section above, others address that the term sodomy has a much heavier emphasis on anal sex, even today (something I know from common discourse in addition to my studies on sexuality), and originally only referred to anal sex or at least sexual activity between two men (which seems to have most commonly been assumed to be anal sex between two men). A variety of sources, old and new, address this; for example this source and this 1981 Psychology Press source. Because of this, I changed Pass a Method's edit that was meant to be truer to what the source states; perhaps I should have been truer to what that first source states. I can see what Pass a Method means by WP:Synthesis in that case. I may add different sources with regard to sodomy that make the "originally only referred to anal sex" matter clearer, but, then again, there has always been a bit of vagueness with regard to the term, even when a source states that it originally only referred to sex between two men; there is vagueness with regard to the "two men" aspect because "sex between two men" does not automatically equate to "anal sex between two men." Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I added different sources for the first line, and changed "usually" to "commonly" for the part about the term sodomy originally being restricted to anal sex, as documented here and here. I still plan to look over more sources on the matter and determine whether or not I should be more strict in my wording, instead of using the word usually or commonly in this regard. That sodomy most often refers to anal sex even today should be addressed in the lead, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Change title by deleting 'original meaning of' as that is not possible and the foremost problem is the page's definition and the telling of the diversity of meanings past and present.Ericglare (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Re "Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sexual activity between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.[1][2][3] " Most people would be utterly astounded to hear sodomy doesn't equate with anal intercourse and that oral sex alone or bestiality alone could be called sodomy (I'm an Aussie sexual health advocate). The page acknowledges ambiguity and interpretation but this first sentence is a complete fail of that and the word 'generally'. Importantly there is next to no text on the page that supports the claimed idea that non-anal sex alone has ever been a common or general meaning of sodomy. This page fails to distinguish meanings from current dictionaries, law text definitions and that from ancient texts and that makes it confusing and unreliable. Of the 3 books used as references, one isn't accessible (ref 1 = useless) and the other two (ref 2 & 3) are written from an USA perspective and then they only claimed this varied definition without any supporting detail or references. Reference 3 actually claims the definition of "any sexual act that does not result in procreation" (presumably generally rather than specifically) so that is a rather poor citation of the meaning described here. Ericglare (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ericglare (talk · contribs), I reverted your change to this section's title, and moved your first post down ahead of your second post, since you did not start this section. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Your comment fits fine in this section without changing its heading. As for the vast majority of people associating sodomy with anal sex, do you have a WP:Reliable source for that? While I think that is true, and, as noted above, edited the lead to emphasize the anal sex aspect, it also refers to "oral sexual activity between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity." Just about any modern dictionary source will show that to be the case, and so do plenty of legal sources. But it's better not to use dictionary sources, and so I cited scholarly sources. The three scholarly sources I used are WP:Reliable sources (read that page about what a reliable source is and isn't to Wikipedia). And as for accessing sources, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. The lead is for summarizing the article, including its definitions, per WP:Lead. The type of distinguishing you want can be addressed, and is already partly addressed, in the Terminology section of the article. We can change that section title to Definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, unless we are talking about sperm somehow being transported to the vagina during a sexual act that does not involve penile-vaginal penetration, I don't see how any sexual activity that is not penile-vaginal penetration will lead to procreation; in other words, I think that the phrasings "any non-procreative sexual activity" and "any sexual act that does not result in procreation" are clear. I don't believe that anyone is going to assume that we mean, for example, sperm leaking from the anus to the vagina during anal sex, or a person's fingers having sperm on them and being moved to the vagina. But it would be clearer to state "any sexual activity that does not involve penile-vaginal penetration." Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For the first source, this Google Books link shows you the pages (three) that the word sodomy is addressed on. And the third source is addressing the topic of a worldwide perspective on sodomy, and laws regarding it throughout history. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Changeful (talk · contribs), I reverted you per what I stated above in this section. Despite you stating, "There is no source for the assertion that sodomy refers to oral sex.", there is, as a simple Google search will show; it is also supported by the sources for that WP:Lead sentence. And what do you think "but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity" means? That obviously includes oral sex. As for your assertion that "This is not a commonly held understanding. This is a very recent invention meant to arouse sympathies against the use of the word 'sodomy.'", see above. Where are your WP:Reliable sources for that? You can revert me, of course, but you will eventually be reverted again. And if I put this matter through a WP:RfC with WP:Reliable sources proving my point, I'm certain that "oral sex" will be staying in the lead, just like it will be staying in the lead at the Sodomy law article. If we find a WP:Reliable source stating that sodomy most commonly means anal sex, we can begin the lead that way, and then expand it with the other definitions afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit please: 'no specific sin is given as reason'[edit]

Please edit to show no specific sin is given in Genesis as reason. Jude 7 clearly states the reason: ″giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange (other) flesh.″[1] Let'sthinkaboutit (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at God and Sex or, even better, read the book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jude 7

Sodomy is not just a legal term in the U.S. Please edit[edit]

"In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration"

In English, at least in the U.S., sodomy is not just a legal term. It is part of our normal vocabulary and generally (in my experience, always) refers merely to anal sex. In fact, I did not even know until reading this article that there are some other cultures for which sodomy generally includes other acts as well.

Why do we not have an edit page for the article? At least, it does not show up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is WP:Semi-protected because it is very much prone to WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2.1 Hospitality.[edit]

2.1 Hebrew Bible The connection between Sodom and homosexuality is derived from the depicted attempt of a mob of city people to rape Lot's male guests. Some suggest the sinfulness of that, for the original writers of the Biblical account, might have consisted mainly in the violation of the obligations of hospitality.[13] This view does not take into account that before the "guests" arrived in the city Genesis 18:v17 and any "hospitality" could have been rendered, its destruction was already planned.

COMMENT: The highlighted part is weird.

The sinning in Sodom was happening before the episode with the attempted rape of the two angels. So whatever or not it was for attempting to rape the male angels or the lack of hospitality, the sinning was already happening before the guests arrived, and it makes no point referencing that the destruction of the city was already planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New York Penal code used as ref - removed as factually inaccurate[edit]

The article contained this text:

"has generally been replaced by the term deviant sexual intercourse, which is described as any form of penetrative intercourse or cunnilingus between unmarried persons."

Unfortunately the NY penal code definitions page (which was used as a ref for that sentence, has nothing on this.

It may be that this used to be a term, indeed it does seem to have been in use, but a search through NY databases finds very few (around 9) links to cases, and indeed a significant proportion of those use "deviate sexual intercourse".

As can be seen from their website, the terms defined do not include this one, either as "deviant" or as "deviate". I would also suspect that using either of those words would be tantamount to starting "normal" (hetero) and "deviant" (homo) name calling, something I would only have expected from more religiously based publications than an encyclopaedia (unless, of course, it is one written by such a religious "organisation")

We can wind back the clock to 1906 and pretend that this kind of legal religious birth control (no, they wanted MORE babies) is still a thing, but hey, let's go with the current NY legislation shall we?

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, the reference you cited above was not used for this text; instead, this book was used for that text. That book is dated to 1996, and what it reported might be outdated. That stated, Wikipedia is not concerned with being "tantamount to starting 'normal' (hetero) and 'deviant' (homo) name calling" in this regard. If it were, it wouldn't be reporting on the topic of sodomy at all. Such terminology already exists, and has existed for a long time, which is why Wikipedia reports on it. As far as this topic you've brought up goes, Wikipedia is concerned with reporting on what the penal codes state, and even what they used to state; Wikipedia is not taking a stance on the matter, and Wikipedia hates WP:Activism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

POV and "Sodomy"[edit]

While acknowledging that Sodomy is a commonname applying to a variety of activities such as anal sex, oral sex and acts related to zoophilia it also seems to me to be a profoundly POV term. Instead of directly describing the actions themselves the description is given via reference to a name given in a biblical story to a city which we are told was destroyed by the angels of an almighty god. I note that the article beastiality acts as a redirect to zoophilia, following a merge conducted by FT2 and was wondering about the extent that similar work might be applied to this terminology. It certainly seems apparent that a term such as "Sodomite" is used less commonly used than a term such as "homosexual" or descriptions such as "gay" or "lesbian".

In many cases I think that it would be beneficial, in situations in which two encyclopedically relevant words may be used, that reference to "sodomy" might be replaced with a more neutral term.

In my personal editing I started looking at the article Sodomy law and found that, in a number of the references and despite its presentation in related point in the text, "sodomy" wasn't mentioned at all.

Coming from a UK background I was suprised at the extent to which sodom related terminologies were used and now appreciate that usage of these terminologies seems to be more common in the United States. Significant geographical locations called Sodom are all in the U.S. while the Sodom (seemingly unsignposted) in the UK's Shetland islands was named after the Norse "Sudheim". In this light I think that it would be worth keeping non U.S. usages in mind.

GregKaye 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sodomy is actually a term that has crept into the US legal code. One cannot eliminate it without therefore participating in POV: [2] [3] [4] Throughout the Caribbean (where it is mostly illegal to have anything but penile/vaginal sex) the statutes usually read "unlawful carnal knowledge" with no further specificity as almost all the codes in the former British colonies were based on British wording. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
SusunW I wasn't neccessarily thinking as much of calling down fire from heaven on the use of the term as to question the extent that its use is WP:DUE. I certainly think that there are less POV terms that could be used in various locations. GregKaye 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye I don't disagree with your rationale in the slightest nor in using terms that are less associated with various religious practices. I was only pointing out that in the case of law, one cannot assume that another term can be utilized. If one is convicted of the crime of sodomy in a state wherein that is a defined legal term, using something else to refer to it changes the meaning. (For example, if one has committed the crime of statutory rape, it changes the meaning for the press to report that the child had sex with an adult. Having sex, in many circumstances is consensual, whereas rape is a legally defined crime.) In most instances, a more neutral term can and should be used. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye has already gone about making these sorts of changes, as seen here, here, here and here. I noticed that before he started this discussion. He did similar with gender dysphoria vs. gender identity disorder, including in cases that I felt were inappropriate; see this link (that's a WP:Permalink). I agree with SusunW on this matter. In some cases, the term sodomy should be used. Furthermore, one cannot simply replace the term sodomy with, for example, anal sex, since sodomy can mean more than one thing... That is, unless the topic is specifically about anal sex and is not being used in a "he was charged," legal way. If the legal context means "the law is against sodomy," then the term sodomy should be used; that obviously includes historical matters (it's simply a "was against" instead of "is against" case). If the source specifies what type of sodomy it is, then the text should as well. In any case, GregKaye alerted three WikiProjects to this discussion, as seen here, here and here, and I'll leave this discussion to others.
On a side note: Bestiality and zoophilia are supposed to be merged into the same article (as they are now), per WP:Content fork. I don't see what that matter has to do with this one, or how either of those two terms is less offensive than the other. They are commonly synonyms, both very stigmatized, and are only differentiated in certain contexts (as made clear in the Zoophilia article). Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Based On Personal Judgement.[edit]

The last part of this article on the section on Islam it is written "Despite the formal disapproval of religious authority, gender segregation in Muslim societies and the strong emphasis on virility leads adolescents and unmarried young men to seek alternative sexual outlets to women, especially with males younger than themselves.[64] Not all sodomy is homosexual, but for many young men heterosexual sodomy is considered better than vaginal penetration, and female prostitutes report the demand for anal penetration from their male clients.[65]", seems to be entirely based on personal analysis, does no reflect the view of majority Muslims, is inconsistent and has weak sources. No valid data to argue this exists and seems to be an attempt to promote homosexuality in the Muslim world, which is OK but can't be Wikipedia standard as it has unreliable, unproven and invalid information. Also this article is based on sodomy, not just homosexual sodomy so the discussion of gender based sexual preferences seems invalid here. I request this part be removed.

Sodom's prior being planned for destruction and some things we might have missed[edit]

Why does the article mention that Sodom was planned to be destroyed beforehand as if this negates the previously mentioned hospitality argument? I have only three things to say on this. Why destroy a town of homosexuals, if, without surrogacies, in one generation they would do it to themselves? This is because the words we tacked on to this did not even exist. But the concepts did. Josephus said Sodom increased their numbers. Again. How did a town of complete and 100% gays, go about achieving this!? No critical-thinking. None. Is it a "Biblical" anti-gay-argument? Turn it upside-down, and there you will find the truths. Can't put them here because that would be meandering. And; why offer your daughters to "known homosexuals"? It's ironic. Stuff like "grab em" and pride in the fall of mankind. And not understanding glory of God and glory of man. And shunning. And unrighteous hypocritical superiority complexes. Are the real and actual sodomy. The straw men on this are dying. The shekinah hoax and complete bias against Serpent Seed are being discovered. Those weren't Adam and Steve. All we need to do is read these pages. Their sources. And see how easy it is to confirm how wrong they are in John and other Biblical sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6A0:E1DE:D1D8:53DE:7184:3AE3 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

User:ScwarebangUser talk:Scwarebang 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is strange to suggest that the predestiny of destruction is an argument against inhospitality being the fatal sin. Inhospitable people generally have a history of inhospitality. Plus, there's the whole God seeing everything business. I agree that this much discussion in the article would be meandering, but maybe there's good reason to strike the sentence "This view does not take into account that, before the "guests" arrived in the city Genesis 18:17 and any "hospitality" could have been rendered, its destruction was already planned."
Okay, I edited this paragraph, and connected it to the previous one, mostly to improve the intelligibility of the discussion. I also moved the sentence about the predestiny to the end and said it applies to both views.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sodomy. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2017[edit]

There are two inaccuracies on the Islam section of the page: The passage given from the Koran (Sura 4:16) is part of a larger passage which is related to extramarital affairs and does not mention homosexuality so it is irrelevant and misinformative. As it is incorrectly given on this page, it should be removed.

Secondly, the sentence "In practice, few modern Muslim countries have legal systems based fully on Shariah, and an increasing number of Muslims do not look to shariah but to the Quran itself for moral guidance." which references "Jivraj & de Jong, p. 2" is misleading. This is because the Jivraj & de Jong is talking specifically about the acceptance of homosexuality in minority communities in the Netherlands. So, this cannot be used to state that most muslims are looking to the Koran instead of shariah as it only talks about muslims in one country. This reference also doesn't provide any information about the legal systems in modern muslim countries which makes its first part incorrect as well. So this sentence should be removed or revised with appropriate references. Kaan1000 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 21:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)