Illegal gay intercourse in Texas???? [Archive]

Tricky

26th June 2003, 05:56 AM

This is an interesting case and I have been watching it since it's development. In fact, I believe it is the same one that Crossbow is referring to.

The situation unfolded this way. A homophobic downstairs neighbor heard the gay couple making love, and called the cops. He knew they would never show if he told them what they were doing, so he claimed that they were "selling drugs". The cops came and caught the couple in flagrante delicto. Since the law is on the books, they had no choice but to arrest them. However, they also arrested the neighbor and charged him with the more serious crime of making a false report.

The courts didn't want to touch the case, but the couple decided to try to get this stupid law off the books, so they have pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court, at great expense and with lots of abuse from other homophobes. However, they have gotten much support from the majority of the nation and it is expected that this law will soon become history, meanwhile setting a Supreme Court precident.

I honestly cannot see the Supreme Court, even as conservative as it is, ruling that the law is fair. My hat is off to the brave pair who had the guts to fight this thing all the way to the top.

LillyThePink

26th June 2003, 05:57 AM

Difference between the "you cannot have sex with a fish" laws and this one is that this one IS actually being enforced.

Do you think gay men should be allowed to have sex in Texas?
Behind closed doors, between two (or more!) consenting adults....

Doesn't this smack of discrimination? On the grounds of sexuality? Why haven't gay people sued the state of Texas/police/whatever?

Upchurch

26th June 2003, 06:22 AM

Is there any constitutional or legal reason why the Supreme Court would possibly uphold the law or is just going through the motions?

Brown

26th June 2003, 07:08 AM

A decision has just been reached.

roger

26th June 2003, 07:08 AM

it has been overturned: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 07:14 AM

I think it appropriate that "roger" brought us this news.

:p

Brown

26th June 2003, 07:20 AM

It is still too early to comment.

According to the New York Times and AP, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and included some sweeping statements concerning privacy and homosexuality. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined with Justice Kennedy. Justice O'Connor agreed with the outcome, but not the rationale.

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

As of this writing, the opinions are not yet posted on the web, but they should be available later today at this site (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html).

hgc

26th June 2003, 07:21 AM

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

from here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy)

Ladewig

26th June 2003, 07:21 AM

The situation unfolded this way. A homophobic downstairs neighbor heard the gay couple making love, and called the cops. He knew they would never show if he told them what they were doing, so he claimed that they were "selling drugs". The cops came and caught the couple in flagrante delicto. Since the law is on the books, they had no choice but to arrest them. However, they also arrested the neighbor and charged him with the more serious crime of making a false report.

It is my understanding that the couple was part of the plot because they wanted to test the law by bringing it into the court system. Now, I have to go find a source for that claim.

My question is - how did we get to 2003 without this law being eradicated before now? And is it legal everywhere else?? Surely this is a civil rights violation of magnificent proportions?

About 16 U.S. states outlaw sodomy. Details here. (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html)

BillyTK

26th June 2003, 07:26 AM

At least the judges didn't decide that the gay sex was fine in principle but wrong in its application! :D

Upchurch

26th June 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
It is my understanding that the couple was part of the plot because they wanted to test the law by bringing it into the court system. Now, I have to go find a source for that claim.According to roger's link, CNN says it was a nosey neighbor who called the cops on them for a false reason. The couple decided to pursue this to its conclusion.
Over 20 U.S. states outlaw sodomy. Only 13 states outlaw sodomy, according to that same link.

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 07:34 AM

Story from here:

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20030626/D7RTG6HG1.html?PG=home&SEC=news

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

....

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.

....

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
[Emphasis mine... and might I add: "...as was to be expected from Bush's sock puppets and demon spawn"]

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

...

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri - prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
[Emphasis mine:... and might I add: "...Dude, look at the list of flyover states´that have majorities of Bible-thumping idiots making laws!"]

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

...

Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, "has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices."

The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line "at the threshold of the marital bedroom."

Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state's supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

---
Isn't Texas a hellhole?

Ricomise

26th June 2003, 07:44 AM

Is there any constitutional or legal reason why the Supreme Court would possibly uphold the law or is just going through the motions?

The reason the Court could uphold the law is Bowers v. Hardwick (No, I'm not making up the name!) The case was decided in the early to mid-80's (I can't remember the exact year right now.) This was a challenge to a Georgia statute outlawing all sodomy regardless of gender or age of persons involved. (Incidentally, the law usually defines sodomy as to include both anal and oral copulation.)

Hardwick happened to be a homosexual who was "caught" in the act with another man in his own bedroom by a sheriff who probably had it in for him for personally.

In any event, the case went to the Supremes, and the Court reached a 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the statute. Although the statute related to all sodomy, the Court restricted its decision to the constitutionality of the law as applied to homosexuals because that was the case before them.

The basis of the decision, as written by Justice Byron "Whizzer" White, is that homosexual behavior is not, and has never been a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution. In Due Process (and to some extent Equal Protection) claims, whether the activity being prohibited is a "fundamental right" (FR) determines what level of scrutiny a law will get. If it is a FR, the law must pass "strict sctrutiny." That is, the law proscribing the behavior must be based upon a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored to acheive that aim. It is a very difficult test to pass, and most laws that attempt to proscribe FRs are struck down. Justice White distinguished the case from the line of "privacy" cases that began with Griswold v. Connecticut (and continued through Roe v. Wade and its progeny) by stating that those cases involved the fundamental right to procreation and since homosexual activity did not, those cases did not apply. Since this law, as applied to this person did not prohibit a fundamental right, the law gets the "rational basis" test. That is, if the government has any rational basis at all for the law, it can stand.

Hardwick argued that there was no rational basis for it, but the Court decided that since law is often based upon moral decisions, the state of Georgia could conclude that the conduct could be prohibited.

My personal opinion of the Bowers case is that White misinterpreted, either intentionally or unintentionally, the reasoning behind privacy precedent, for reasons I will not expound here. The current case has some obvious differences, but we need to remember that Justices Renquist and O'Conner agreed with the decision at that time, and are still on the Court. I have little doubt where Scalia and Thomas will come down (it won't be to strike down the law), so there may be four votes right there to uphold it. The only Justice remaining on the Court that dissented from Bowers is Stevens. So IMO, it comes down to Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and Bader-Ginsburg.

It is certainly no sure thing.

Brown

26th June 2003, 07:46 AM

Already some groups have been vocal in their criticism of the decision. They are calling it by as many inflamatory names as they can, apparently in the hopes of drawing media attention.

When pressed to explain what part of the rationale is objectionable, they admit that they have not yet read the opinion.

Pinheads.

This is a hot-button topic, and one can expect a lot of people to have pretty strong opinions, based upon religious or other considerations. But it is extremely important, in my view, that an opinion be an informed one. And part of being informed is actually reading what the Court said, rather than relying upon what someone else tells you the Court said.

Ricomise

26th June 2003, 08:00 AM

That's what I get for not reading the news this morning.
Thanks Blackpriester

It will be intersting to read the decisions, especially O'Conner's concurrence. She has "mellowed" a bit over the years.

Lurker

26th June 2003, 08:07 AM

Yes, as expected Scalia and his lapdog Thomas voted to uphold the current law. Rehnquist joined them.

I see no reason to uphold that law and I posit that these three justices are all doing so because fo their conservative values and religion.

By the way, has Thomas EVER differed from Scalia? I say we just give Scalia two votes and stop paying Thomas. At least we would save some money.

Lurker

subgenius

26th June 2003, 08:11 AM

"Isn't Texas a hellhole?"

"You know where you stand in a .....hellhole."---Spinal Tap
;)

subgenius

26th June 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Yes, as expected Scalia and his lapdog Thomas voted to uphold the current law. Rehnquist joined them.

I see no reason to uphold that law and I posit that these three justices are all doing so because fo their conservative values and religion.

By the way, has Thomas EVER differed from Scalia? I say we just give Scalia two votes and stop paying Thomas. At least we would save some money.

Lurker

:D ;)
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22270

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Ricomise
That's what I get for not reading the news this morning.
Thanks Blackpriester

It will be intersting to read the decisions, especially O'Conner's concurrence. She has "mellowed" a bit over the years.

Always glad to help ;)

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Yes, as expected Scalia and his lapdog Thomas voted to uphold the current law. Rehnquist joined them.

I see no reason to uphold that law and I posit that these three justices are all doing so because fo their conservative values and religion.

By the way, has Thomas EVER differed from Scalia? I say we just give Scalia two votes and stop paying Thomas. At least we would save some money.

Lurker

I can't get over Lurker's fantastic Avatar...
plus, there is also the fact that he always agrees with me ;).

ceo_esq

26th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

There are these things called "blue laws". Theyre old school puritan type laws that have been on the books forever. The thing is no one (usually) enforces them so they dont bother taking them off the books. For example adultry is a crime in many states yet no one is charged with it.

They can be silly things like "women have to wear bonnets on Sundays". There are websites out there that list some of these outdated laws.
For the record, the term "blue laws" refers only to laws regulating activity on Sundays.

A Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13472&Version=p) conducted recently reveals that only 6 in 10 Americans nationwide believe that homosexual intercourse between consenting adults should be permitted by law. In terms of broad social attitudes, that's not an overwhelming majority. So the reason these laws are still on the books in a number of states is not that no one's gotten around to repealing archaic laws - it's that the society hasn't come to anything approaching a consensus as to whether such laws are in fact archaic.

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

For the record, the term "blue laws" refers only to laws regulating activity on Sundays.

A Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13472&Version=p) conducted recently reveals that only 6 in 10 Americans nationwide believe that homosexual intercourse between consenting adults should be permitted by law. In terms of broad social attitudes, that's not an overwhelming majority. So the reason these laws are still on the books in a number of states is not that no one's gotten around to repealing archaic laws - it's that the society hasn't come to anything approaching a consensus as to whether such laws are in fact archaic.

Very true - especially in the flyover states mentioned earlier...

LillyThePink

26th June 2003, 08:22 AM

Good grief. That's incredible. Were the surveys conducted just along the Bible belt, or did the Gallup folks move farther afield?

It may be the Land of the Free, but there's some fairly strong intolerance of what gay people do with their freedom.....

:p

subgenius

26th June 2003, 08:23 AM

"....Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals.""
Yeah, as long as they're in prison where they belong.:mad:

Mike B.

26th June 2003, 08:44 AM

How many people actually used to get prosecuted for this law?

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.
How many people actually used to get prosecuted for this law?

...even "one" would be "one too many" in my book.

Tmy

26th June 2003, 08:59 AM

I wonder why Bible types have such a distain for the gays. Its not even a Commandment. I think people just enjoy having a group to hate.

Divorce is also a sin. I dont see divorces' being treated so badly by religious types.

blackpriester

26th June 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
I wonder why Bible types have such a distain for the gays. Its not even a Commandment. I think people just enjoy having a group to hate.

Divorce is also a sin. I dont see divorces' being treated so badly by religious types.

That's because divorcees are not a united group defined by a common "inborn" characteristic. Everybody can potentially bcome a divorcee, even the most devout bible-thumpers (I have a fundi friend/foe who got divorced by his sexually dissatisfied wife, hehe).

It is easy to hate gays, though - if you are not attracted to men (or can be reasonably sure to never act it out ;), you can let fire and brimstone rain on them all you want. It's never gonna fly back in your face.

- blackpriester

Tmy

26th June 2003, 09:21 AM

I dont by the "inborn" argument. Not really. I think that some people are born gay, but others choose to be. That explaines bi-sexuals.

Do people think this opens the way to gay marriage. I dont think so. We do have limits to marriage. Like poligamy laws.

SFB

26th June 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Brown
Already some groups have been vocal in their criticism of the decision. They are calling it by as many inflamatory names as they can, apparently in the hopes of drawing media attention.

When pressed to explain what part of the rationale is objectionable, they admit that they have not yet read the opinion.

Pinheads.

This is a hot-button topic, and one can expect a lot of people to have pretty strong opinions, based upon religious or other considerations. But it is extremely important, in my view, that an opinion be an informed one. And part of being informed is actually reading what the Court said, rather than relying upon what someone else tells you the Court said.

Whoa, no kidding. From the this-just-out post above: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html

"The court has said today that morality -- matters of right and wrong behavior -- do not matter in the law," said the Rev. Rob Shenck, one of the group's founders. "That is an undermining of our concept of justice in this country ...

In an interview with The Associated Press, Santorum said if the justices overturned the Texas law, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything."

I am appalled at these statements. Basically the US is going to hell in a handbasket because of this ruling! PINHEADS

Brown

26th June 2003, 09:46 AM

The opinion is now available at this web site. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html)

The Supreme Court overruled the Bowers case, and used some pretty strong language in doing so.

I recommend reading Justice Kennedy's opinon and Justice Scalia's dissent. Justice O'Connor's concurrence is all right, but the really interesting stuff is in the other two opinions.

Justice Kennedy's opinion is a hymn to personal liberty and privacy (and an outright vindication for Justice Stevens), but leaves several important legal questions unanswered (which Justice Scalia points out in the opening paragraphs of his opinion). Justice Scalia's opinion is, in my judgment, dripping with irony. (It also includes quite a few non sequiturs... usually he's not as careless with his logic as this.)

Brown

26th June 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by SFB
Basically the US is going to hell in a handbasket because of this ruling!Justice Scalia seems to agree. Here is how he puts it:The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable”... —the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion.... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.

corplinx

26th June 2003, 10:50 AM

Just wondering, we are all glad that today a silly _state_ law was shot down. However, do you think this was actually in the realm of what the supreme court is there to do?

Also, I think Rick Santorum was partially right. This does open the question of state laws about other behaviors. Personally, if you want to have sex with someone of the same sex, someone in your immediate family, or whatever; its none of my or the governments business if its consensual. Whatever floats your boat. I think the big unspoken worry is consensual sex between adults and teenagers (pre-18).

I think I would have to vote with Thomas and Scalia and say to the Texas supreme court, "you strike this down so we don't have to". I don't think this ever should have gotten this high. I think states have to be able to legislate against at least one form of sexual behavior (sex with minors).

Tmy

26th June 2003, 11:09 AM

"the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity"

Is this a fair comparison? These other actions hurt 3rd parties. In this case we have 2 consenting adults.

You know bigamy should be legal. Freedom of religion and all. I dont see how that passes constitutional muster.

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 11:23 AM

I dont see how that passes constitutional muster.

It makes the Christians uncomfortable.

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 11:36 AM

Well, besides putting a nail in the coffin of the greatest country the world has ever seen in the history mankind, what else has the USSC done? Today they said it is OK for homosexuals to be legal pole smokers, but my question is this:

"What non culture war issue will be decided by the USSC in the next century?"

It is why we are now America in name only [AINO].

JK

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 11:40 AM

Edited to add:

It makes Jedi Knight uncomfortable as well.

Lurker

26th June 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

I can't get over Lurker's fantastic Avatar...
plus, there is also the fact that he always agrees with me ;).

What a fantastic coincidence! I was about to write a treatise on the irrefutable logic and intelligence of blackpriester! I had already penned about six pages on how he always seems to be correct in his opinions. Now it would just come across as me-too-isms, soooo.....*crumple*.

Lurker

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin
Edited to add:

It makes Jedi Knight uncomfortable as well.

Well sure, 3,000 years of moral law just went out the window today. It is nothing to celebrate and will only increase extremism in the United States one-hundred fold.

JK

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 11:53 AM

Well sure, 3,000 years of moral law just went out the window today

What does the Talmud say about owning and operating motor vehicles?

Lurker

26th June 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
Just wondering, we are all glad that today a silly _state_ law was shot down. However, do you think this was actually in the realm of what the supreme court is there to do?

Also, I think Rick Santorum was partially right. This does open the question of state laws about other behaviors. Personally, if you want to have sex with someone of the same sex, someone in your immediate family, or whatever; its none of my or the governments business if its consensual. Whatever floats your boat. I think the big unspoken worry is consensual sex between adults and teenagers (pre-18).

I think I would have to vote with Thomas and Scalia and say to the Texas supreme court, "you strike this down so we don't have to". I don't think this ever should have gotten this high. I think states have to be able to legislate against at least one form of sexual behavior (sex with minors).

You know, corplinx, I can kind of agree with this one, suprise, surprise. It never should have gotten to the SC. Further, states should be able to legislate some forms of sexual behavior. But I don't think they should between two consenting adults (except possibly incest but that is becasue fo health issues). And this case was about sodomy, right? You bringing in all those other practices is immaterial, correct?

Lurker

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin

What does the Talmud say about owning and operating motor vehicles?

You mean a wagon pulled by oxen?

JK

SFB

26th June 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Brown
Justice Scalia seems to agree. Here is how he puts it:

Santorum: "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything." Justice Scalia said just about the same.

Doesn't that smack of slippery slope?

To me, the argument is about what gay men do in their bedrooms, (not incest, bestiality, etc...), and the laws against it. Am I missing this as setting a legal precedent from which the other laws will be reversed? I need to be shown how this ties in with the other laws. Without it I can't make the Santorum/Scalia leap.

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 12:02 PM

You mean a wagon pulled by oxen?

Nope.

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 12:05 PM

Doesn't that smack of slippery slope?

I agree.

It is a moral stance, not a constitutional one.

Two consenting adults should be able to do to each other sexually what they want (key words are consenting and adults).

Bestiality and statatory rape do not necessarily fall into the same boat here.

Lurker

26th June 2003, 12:05 PM

Corplinx:

Mea culpa. Thomas HAS voted against Scalia. I retract my statement about Thomas although I STILL don't like the man.

Here is the link:

http://www.satanosphere.com/story/2003/2/25/124750/469

Lurker

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by SFB

Santorum: "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything." Justice Scalia said just about the same.

Doesn't that smack of slippery slope?

To me, the argument is about what gay men do in their bedrooms, (not incest, bestiality, etc...), and the laws against it. Am I missing this as setting a legal precedent from which the other laws will be reversed? I need to be shown how this ties in with the other laws. Without it I can't make the Santorum/Scalia leap.

You are going to have pedophiles sodomizing kids, fathers sodomizing their daughters, men living with 10 women and then marrying them....it is all going to happen.

You can't allow one perversion to be accepted by law and then dismiss other perversions that can use the same legal argument.

As I said, we are now America in name only.

JK

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 12:08 PM

it is all going to happen.

It happens now. It happened 300 years ago in your Biblical paradice.

Two consenting adults, JK, two consenting adults. That's different than rape.

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

It happens now. It happened 300 years ago in your Biblical paradice.

Two consenting adults, JK, two consenting adults. That's different than rape.

Sure, it happened but was shunned by society as the perversion it was. Now, we get a handful of judges to counter the will of entire countries and legislate from the bench.

Nothing good will come of this.

JK

Crossbow

26th June 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

What does the Talmud say about owning and operating motor vehicles?

If there are Orthodox Jews out there who like to correct me on this topic please do so, but I will give the best answer I can all the same.

Since cars are mechanical devices they cannot be operated by Jews from the start of the Sabbath (usually defined as sundown on Friday) until the end of the Sabbath (usually defined as sundown on Saturday). Also, Jews should not operate them during the Yom Kippur holiday.

There are no restrictions about the ownership of such devices provided that they were obtained in a legal way (so, if one legally bought a car, then that would be all right. However, if one stole a car, then that would not be all right.).

Ricomise

26th June 2003, 12:15 PM

3,000 years of moral law just went out the window today

Regardless of Mr. Justice Scalia's hyperbole, (I will attempt to avoid the argument regarding whether law should be based upon morality, that is for another time.) "moral law" hasn't gone anywhere.

The Court's opinion does not say that states can never regulate sexual behavior. What it does say is that a statute that prohibits private, consensual, sexual conduct between competent adults does not further a legitimate government interest. It overrules a decision in Bowers that misapprehended the precedent the Court began in Griswold v. Connecticut.

I agree with Scalia about one thing: that the Court probably should have mentioned the "penumbrial" rights that the original privacy cases rested upon. IMO, those cases should have rested in the "substantive due process" to begin with. I hope this is a beginning of a melding of the right to privacy into that due process context.

A state certainly may have "legitimate" or "rational interest in prohibiting some kinds of sexual conduct. For instance, a state may have an interest in protecting its minor citizens from sexual experiences they may not be capable of understanding or consenting to.

Does it open the way for gay marriage? I would hope so, as I don't see the state's rational interest in proscribing such, but I would doubt a majority of the Court agrees with me. The dicta contained in Justice Kennedy's opinion leads me to believe that gay marriage is still outside the "liberty interest" he described today.

corplinx

26th June 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
"the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity"

Is this a fair comparison? These other actions hurt 3rd parties. In this case we have 2 consenting adults.

You know bigamy should be legal. Freedom of religion and all. I dont see how that passes constitutional muster.

bigamy is a crime of fraud, you have multiple spouses who arent aware of each other, polygamy is what you refer to that might be none of the government's business

Some states may decide they don't want polygamy because of the burden imposed of deciding disputes caused over property of deceased persons.

Adult incest is really none of the governments business. If you and your sibling are both consenting adults, its none of the gov's business if you want to have intercourse.

Nova Land

26th June 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

bigamy is a crime of fraud, you have multiple spouses who arent aware of each other, polygamy is what you refer to that might be none of the government's businessAre you sure about that? Looking at the words, "bigamy" has the root bi- for two, and "polygamy" has the root poly- for many. I think the distinction between a bigamist and a polygamist is how many women they marry, not how much deception they use to do it.

While bigamists commonly are men who fraudulently marry two women, I'm not sure that fraud is an essential part of the crime. I suspect it is just as illegal whether the women are aware of the man's marital status or not.

But I do agree that there is a moral, if not legal, difference between having multiple spouses who are not aware of one's other spouses, and having multiple spouses who are aware of and agreeable to the arrangement.

Ricomise

26th June 2003, 12:35 PM

Am I missing this as setting a legal precedent from which the other laws will be reversed? I need to be shown how this ties in with the other laws. Without it I can't make the Santorum/Scalia leap.

THe fear here (which I don't agree with, see above post) in Scalia's mind, is that the Court has struck down this statute using the rational basis test. You have to understand that in substantive due process cases, hardly anything ever gets struck down under the rational basis test. It has basically been a case of does it get "strict sctrutiny?" if so its probably struck down. If not, it is almost certainly upheld. Scalia is afraid that if you start saying a government has no rational basis for this, then you must say you have no rational basis for anything. Historically, the getting a statute reviewed by the rational basis test was always a winner.

IMO, the test is misnamed. I much prefer the "legitimate interst" designation which is sometimes applied to this test. Many things are "rational" but may not be legitimate government interests. I've alway wondered "why have a test at all if everything is going to pass it?" I hope this is the beginning of a move away from that standard.

The problem is it was a relatively easy standard to apply. Is a "fundamental right" involved? If not, government wins. There is a saying that "hard cases make bad law." Well, unfortunately, almost all the important cases are hard. Objective standards are nice, and very useful, but if the Constitution is to have any flexibilty at all, they can't always be used.

Of course, Scalia would disagree about the amount of flexibility the Constitution should have. (He prefers an admantium rod Constitution where what the founders said is what they meant damn it, and who are we to muck with it.)

pgwenthold

26th June 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

bigamy is a crime of fraud, you have multiple spouses who arent aware of each other, polygamy is what you refer to that might be none of the government's business

Some states may decide they don't want polygamy because of the burden imposed of deciding disputes caused over property of deceased persons.

Adult incest is really none of the governments business. If you and your sibling are both consenting adults, its none of the gov's business if you want to have intercourse.

And note that this ruling does not have anything to do with preventing incestual marriages, or even polygamous marriages. Thus, it is hyperbolic to think that this will open the door for polygomy.

What _is_ protected, basically, is the right to group sex. In private.

hgc

26th June 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
Just wondering, we are all glad that today a silly _state_ law was shot down. However, do you think this was actually in the realm of what the supreme court is there to do?

Also, I think Rick Santorum was partially right. This does open the question of state laws about other behaviors. Personally, if you want to have sex with someone of the same sex, someone in your immediate family, or whatever; its none of my or the governments business if its consensual. Whatever floats your boat. I think the big unspoken worry is consensual sex between adults and teenagers (pre-18).

I think I would have to vote with Thomas and Scalia and say to the Texas supreme court, "you strike this down so we don't have to". I don't think this ever should have gotten this high. I think states have to be able to legislate against at least one form of sexual behavior (sex with minors).
corplinx,

As to the question of whether this is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, I think so. If the U.S. Constitution has primacy over state constitutions and state laws, then the U.S. Supreme court should hear and rule on cases where state laws violate the terms of the constitution. If the U.S. Constitution does not have primacy, then what's its purpose? Any state could willfully violate it with its own constitution and laws.

You even suggest that the court tell Texas (state supreme court) to strike it down "so we don't have to." Is that meant to be an empty threat, in your mind? Are you saying that if Texas courts don't strike down this law the U.S. Supreme Court has to? That's kind of what happened.

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 12:36 PM

Sure, it happened but was shunned by society as the perversion it was.

You know, there have been and are still more than one society in the world.

In fact, we get democracy from a country that in many cases preferred that men be with men.

Crossbow, thanks for the insight. ;)

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

You know, there have been and are still more than one society in the world.

In fact, we get democracy from a country that in many cases preferred that men be with men.

Crossbow, thanks for the insight. ;)

I am sure America will be able to accept the collateral damage from the decision. With a leftist USSC like we have, the American people have no other choice, unless the system is scrapped and completely replaced.

JK

Crossbow

26th June 2003, 12:41 PM

Upchurch

26th June 2003, 12:41 PM

Applicable thread, Traditional American Virtues vs. Traditional American Values (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22288), over in R&P.

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow
Take a deep breath and focus on the tennis ball JK, this ruling is not going to be the fall of the Republic.

I don't think it will "fall", just aggressively revised.

JK

Tmy

26th June 2003, 01:01 PM

How did they define sodomy?

c0rbin

26th June 2003, 01:07 PM

How did they define sodomy?

They couldn't define it, but they'd know it when they saw it.

:D :D

Upchurch

26th June 2003, 01:11 PM

Dancing David made an excellent point on another thread. Wasn't the purpose of coming to America in the first place so that people could live their lives the way they wanted to without have religious moral values forced upon them? Isn't that what the Supreme Court upheld today?

corplinx

26th June 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Dancing David made an excellent point on another thread. Wasn't the purpose of coming to America in the first place so that people could live their lives the way they wanted to without have religious moral values forced upon them? Isn't that what the Supreme Court upheld today?

Kinda sorta. Unfortunately this was the worst place to do it. It should have been settled in Texas.

The fear that I have is when nambla tries to bring a case to federal court where sex between an adult and a 16 year old is deemed lawful since the 16 year old is very mature.

We need a certain kludginess of seperation of state and federal law so we can dismiss this stuff at the state level. Once you take things to the federal level, you will have federal precedent.

Religious conservatives in Texas are getting their just desserts. If they had rallied to have a "nonya business" act passed in the Texas legislature repealing the sodomy law then the whole federation of states wouldn't now be subject to new cases testing the waters.

corplinx

26th June 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by hgc

corplinx,

As to the question of whether this is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, I think so. If the U.S. Constitution has primacy over state constitutions and state laws, then the U.S. Supreme court should hear and rule on cases where state laws violate the terms of the constitution.

I don't disagree. I just point out that I wish this had been handled at the state level.

Ricomise

26th June 2003, 01:48 PM

The fear that I have is when nambla tries to bring a case to federal court where sex between an adult and a 16 year old is deemed lawful since the 16 year old is very mature.

As I stated above, I don't think this is a problem. Under the same standard of review the Court used in this case, it could find that a state has a "legitimate interest" in proscribing sex between adults and minors. Do you agree that there may certainly be evidence that such a situation is quite different from consensual adult sex? Scalia and the religious right would have us believe that they are one and the same and that no rational mind could see otherwise. This is false. The Court did not paint itself into a corner on this one.

We need a certain kludginess of seperation of state and federal law so we can dismiss this stuff at the state level. Once you take things to the federal level, you will have federal precedent.

There is a seperation of state and federal law. This case probably could have gone to the Texas Supreme Court under the section of the Texas Constitution that mirrors the 14th amendment. (All state constitutions have these.) There are two ways to get a case heard in Federal Court. (Jurisdictionally.) "Diversity" and "federal question." Diversity just means that the parties are from different states. Federal Question means that the case and controversy arises under a Federal statute or the Federal Constitution. Because this was a claim that the statute in question violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (apparently both the due process and equal protection clauses,) the Federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Thanks for your time.

repairman

26th June 2003, 01:56 PM

. Originally posted by corplinx,

I think the big unspoken worry is consensual sex between adults and teenagers (pre-18).

By definition the sex between an adult and a teenager (pre-18) cannot be consentual because a minor cannot give consent.

corplinx

26th June 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by repairman

By definition the sex between an adult and a teenager (pre-18) cannot be consentual because a minor cannot give consent.

Use your imagination. Age of consent is an artificial barrier. I am sure nambla will point that out.

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Use your imagination. Age of consent is an artificial barrier. I am sure nambla will point that out.

Look, this whole sodomy thing isn't about homosexuals and never was. Homosexuals have been anally probing themselves on San Francisco street corners for decades with impunity.

What this was about was access to children. That is what the case was about and the USSC opened the door. No one, no elected politician was ever going to tell homosexuals they couldn't have sex. That would be like telling a Mexican he isn't allowed to eat burritos.

No, what this was about was testing the USSC for future perverse plans involving sex with children. That is what it was all about and it is the greatest legal deception in the history of the United States.

When Ralph the pedophile has your kids or some other kids you know bent over and he is doing it legally, keep on celebrating the USSC decision. It is only a matter of time now. This decision gives every perverse group in the US a right to go have their nasty sexual behavior aired out in court, seeking full protection for it.

It will happen just like the homosexual movement. People will say: "Homosexuals will never be allowed to live together, to have sex, etc etc etc." Well look what happened.

The same thing is going to happen with sexual predators wanting legal access to your children all across America. They will have the USSC behind them too.

It is "Let's do it for the children" in an entirely different format. Notice how heterosexual families will be preyed upon in all instances, however.

JK

Bjorn

26th June 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This decision gives every perverse group in the US a right to go have their nasty sexual behavior aired out in court, seeking full protection for it.

JK I certainly hope every group, has a right to 'air out' their behaviour in court.

However, thinking that child molestors will win is a bit perverse in itself, IMHO.

What happened to you Jedi, why all the hatred towards females and gays/lesbians? Who are left for you to love? :(

Bjorn

26th June 2003, 06:52 PM

I just wanted to add that even Scalia is saying:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. I guess that's where he disagrees with JK? :confused:

Jedi Knight

26th June 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
I certainly hope every group, has a right to 'air out' their behaviour in court.

However, thinking that child molestors will win is a bit perverse in itself, IMHO.

What happened to you Jedi, why all the hatred towards females and gays/lesbians? Who are left for you to love? :(

It isn't hate. That is what leftists say when judges legislate from the bench and Americans question it. We have a system using the US Constitution to pass laws. Judges do not need to be passing laws from the bench. That is what the legislature is for. This homosexual advocate on MSNBC said it perfectly today. He said: "We went to the USSC to get a law passed and we won."

He was right. He was absolutely right. The USSC legislated, ignoring all judicial restraint. Not only did the USSC legislate, they took sides in a cultural issue they had no business sticking their noses into. There is no consensus on homosexuality in the United States, just as there has never been a consensus on abortion.

But hey, let's do it the good old 4th world commie way and legislate it.

JK

subgenius

26th June 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Use your imagination. Age of consent is an artificial barrier. I am sure nambla will point that out.
The sky is falling!
There are long known rational reasons for making the distinction.
Although those who want to execute 11 year olds may make nambla's case for them.

Bjorn

26th June 2003, 07:12 PM

JK,

And Scalia is a commie also? :(

Clancie

26th June 2003, 08:12 PM

Only 15 states now have anti-sodomy laws. In 1961, all 50 did.
Originally posted by corplinx

Just wondering, we are all glad that today a silly _state_ law was shot down. However, do you think this was actually in the realm of what the supreme court is there to do?
My understanding is that Justice Kennedy based his ruling on the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

By the way, I just learned today that oral sex is considered sodomy as well.

I wonder how many people who support anti-sodomy laws realize that? :confused:

Tricky

26th June 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't disagree. I just point out that I wish this had been handled at the state level.
Many states have done exactly that, but Texas is one of those states that doesn't have that option. The US constitution, which is described as a "living document" allows all sorts of interpretation, which means a new amendment doesn't need to be written every time the will of the people changes.

The Texas constitution is just the opposite. It is a strict document that defines everything exactly, and as a result has been amended almost 300 times because it simply can't handle change. Because of this, the sodomy laws are strictly encoded into the constitution and no state judge can overturn them. That is why it was so important to get this case to the US Supreme Court in order to rule that part of the Texas Constitution to be in conflict with the US Constitution.

Personally, I find it odd that such freedom-loving patriots such as Jedi Knight want the government in our bedrooms. I guess his idea of freedom is "freedom to do as I say".

Bjorn

26th June 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Personally, I find it odd that such freedom-loving patriots such as Jedi Knight want the government in our bedrooms. I guess his idea of freedom is "freedom to do as I say". If oral sex is considered sodomy, as claimed above, do you think JK would be against it?

Or, on the other hand, do you think he tried it and is for it?

A tiny bit more serious, why is it that some people want to prohibit things they find disgusting, although others find it delicious? I wonder if raw oysters can be legally consumed in Texas? :(

NoZed Avenger

26th June 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Many states have done exactly that, but Texas is one of those states that doesn't have that option. The US constitution, which is described as a "living document" allows all sorts of interpretation, which means a new amendment doesn't need to be written every time the will of the people changes.

The Texas constitution is just the opposite. It is a strict document that defines everything exactly, and as a result has been amended almost 300 times because it simply can't handle change. Because of this, the sodomy laws are strictly encoded into the constitution and no state judge can overturn them.

I believe that this is incorrect, Tricky. The law in question, IIRC, was section 21.06 of the Penal Code -- just a state statute. The Texas Constitution has equal protection language in it similar to the US version -- a state court would have the authority to overturn the law on several possible grounds, both under the US and Texas Constitutions.

NA

PS - For the most part, I like the fact that the government has to come to the voters to convince us to authorize changes in the state constitution, too. While it can lead to bad results in some cases, throwing roadblocks in the way of government expansion is usually positive.

Tricky

26th June 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
If oral sex is considered sodomy, as claimed above, do you think JK would be against it?

Or, on the other hand, do you think he tried it and is for it?
I'm assuming Jedi is against heterosexual sex as well, since it involves women. He's probably a cloning advocate.

kerfer

26th June 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Only 15 states now have anti-sodomy laws. In 1961, all 50 did.

By the way, I just learned today that oral sex is considered sodomy as well.

I wonder how many people who support anti-sodomy laws realize that? :confused: [/B]

Yup. This is one of the reasons that I think the SC made the right decision here.

I also don't see anything in the Constitution that allows the State into the bedrooms of consenting adults. Not the bedrooms of gays, yours, mine, or anyone else's. After all, if the State can dictate what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own abode, with any number of consenting adults*, what is to keep them out of yours? And therein, IMO lies the real slippery slope.

Good decision.

* agreed thatconsenting and adults are key words here. And steps need to be taken to ensure that only consenting adults are really involved, to several leels of indirection. Danielle VanDam (RIP, beautiful child) :( a perfect case in point.

The Central Scrutinizer

26th June 2003, 11:21 PM

Here (http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/jun2003/Constitution_6-26-2003.pdf) is another opposing viewpoint.

subgenius

27th June 2003, 12:05 AM

"Sodomy" has varying definitions, and therefore is vague, from the outset. (Edited to replace the term "ab initio.")
Michigan still has a statute proscribing "gross indecency."
And to this day they have refused to define the conduct that is illegal because of the "indelicate nature of the subject."
That is unconstitutional on its face to not tell people specifically what they cannot do. Notice is required to hold people criminally responsible for crimes of intent.
(Interesting side note all crimes occur in the mind: you must have the "mens rea": a guilty mind--which is an element of all crimes of intent.)

subgenius

27th June 2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Here (http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/jun2003/Constitution_6-26-2003.pdf) is another opposing viewpoint.
I demonstrated when this guy came to a local predominately gay community.
We created a "hate-free zone." And even invited him in to the local church. He declined. He is, I believe, and ashamed to admit is a lawyer and/or his accomplices are and make a point of trying to get the local authorities to overstep their bounds in restraining their provocative behavior so they can sue them. FYI.
God Hates......anyone? How sick can you get? Speaking on behalf of God.

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

What a fantastic coincidence! I was about to write a treatise on the irrefutable logic and intelligence of blackpriester! I had already penned about six pages on how he always seems to be correct in his opinions. Now it would just come across as me-too-isms, soooo.....*crumple*.

Lurker

F**ker ;)

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 12:32 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by corplinx
Just wondering, we are all glad that today a silly _state_ law was shot down. However, do you think this was actually in the realm of what the supreme court is there to do?

Also, I think Rick Santorum was partially right. This does open the question of state laws about other behaviors. Personally, if you want to have sex with someone of the same sex, someone in your immediate family, or whatever; its none of my or the governments business if its consensual. Whatever floats your boat. I think the big unspoken worry is consensual sex between adults and teenagers (pre-18).

I think I would have to vote with Thomas and Scalia and say to the Texas supreme court, "you strike this down so we don't have to". I don't think this ever should have gotten this high. I think states have to be able to legislate against at least one form of sexual behavior (sex with minors).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Lurker

You know, corplinx, I can kind of agree with this one, suprise, surprise. It never should have gotten to the SC. Further, states should be able to legislate some forms of sexual behavior. But I don't think they should between two consenting adults (except possibly incest but that is becasue fo health issues). And this case was about sodomy, right? You bringing in all those other practices is immaterial, correct?

Lurker

Premiere!
The first post in which I DISAGREE with Lurker
(and Corplinx, but that is kind of normal...!).

WHY in all heaven's name should states be able to legislate some forms of sexual behavior (as long as they are based on consensuality)? How do such laws not inhibit the individual's pursuit of happiness?

In my opininon, both consensual incest and beastiality (with "consenting beasts", i.e. male animal, female human) should be perfectly legal. The latter actually IS in almost all European countries, for example - and I don't see lots of beast fornication going on there. Just let the people do what they want - I don't care if my neighbor does it with his rubber boots or his car exhaust.

Incest, by the way, does not carry a lot of health risks.
Even in case of pregnancy (!), the risks for the child are only minimally higher if it is the FIRST incestuous generation ("copy errors" get exponentially worse with each generation in an incestuous family though - that's why the European nobility was never a good idea ;).

Do I need to say that I have no problem with bigamy (as in marrying two consenting people, not in: marrying one person and lying to the other by stating you're not married..), polygamy and adultery either, as long as all involved parties are fine with it? Adultery sucks of course, since it implies betrayal - but it's something that should be sorted out between the partners, not by the state justice.

(edited to correct "mistake of definition")

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You are going to have pedophiles sodomizing kids, fathers sodomizing their daughters, men living with 10 women and then marrying them....it is all going to happen.

You can't allow one perversion to be accepted by law and then dismiss other perversions that can use the same legal argument.

As I said, we are now America in name only.

JK

******** Jedi. You are doing a reverse-non-sequitur.
How does pedophilia follow out of a law that decriminalizes sex between CONSENTING ADULTS?

You might have fathers screwing their --> 18yo consenting daughters<-- soon if we follow through on that PATH, I agree. And although I am personally not thrilled about this kind of stuff, I am tolerant enough to let other pepole do what they want and think is right. it's simply not my, your or the government's business.

I do read Erotica on www.literotica.com (not workfriendly!) from time to time... and although I am more into group sex and plain old male-female-fun, there seems to be a HUGE crowd with incest fantasies. Who am -->I<-- to tell them they are wrong?

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

And note that this ruling does not have anything to do with preventing incestual marriages, or even polygamous marriages. Thus, it is hyperbolic to think that this will open the door for polygomy.

What _is_ protected, basically, is the right to group sex. In private.

... which is very fortunate ;).
Not that I'd use it anymore - I will be married to the sweetest girl in the entire Universe soon and have been (and further intend to be) true to her. I just claim it's none of the gov's biz what I do in my bedroom, as long as the other party(s) are not dissenting or are too young to understand.

(Edited for spelling because I was bored)

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

The fear that I have is when nambla tries to bring a case to federal court where sex between an adult and a 16 year old is deemed lawful since the 16 year old is very mature.

Which would bring us to the non-sensical age of content in the US. Its 13 in Germany and most other European nations, for example - and you don't have a lot of "man-boy-love" there, so it can't be the end of civilization.

16 would be a good age of consent in my book - with me as parent being able to whack the hell out of the creep who tries to bugger my son or daughter, but with the state not being able to criminalize some poor 19yo-schmock who falls in love with a 17yo girl (or boy).

BTW: I think NAMBLA (I know very little of them) are probably a bunch of crackpots, but your above example actually makes a case FOR them in my book.

Lurker

27th June 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

Premiere!
The first post in which I DISAGREE with Lurker
(and Corplinx, but that is kind of normal...!).
[/B]

Well, I disagree with Corplinx about 95% of the time so was pretty surprised that I could salvage some minro point of agreement here.

WHY in all heaven's name should states be able to legislate some forms of sexual behavior (as long as they are based on consensuality)? How do such laws not inhibit the individual's pursuit of happiness?

In my opininon, both consensual incest and beastiality (with "consenting beasts", i.e. male animal, female human) should be perfectly legal. The latter actually IS in almost all European countries, for example - and I don't see lots of beast fornication going on there. Just let the people do what they want - I don't care if my neighbor does it with his rubber boots or his car exhaust.

Incest, by the way, does not carry a lot of health risks.
Even in case of pregnancy (!), the risks for the child are only minimally higher if it is the FIRST incestuous generation ("copy errors" get exponentially worse with each generation in an incestuous family though - that's why the European nobility was never a good idea ;).

Do I need to say that I have no problem with bigamy (as in marrying two consenting people, not in: marrying one person and lying to the other by stating you're not married..), polygamy and adultery either, as long as all involved parties are fine with it? Adultery sucks of course, since it implies betrayal - but it's something that should be sorted out between the partners, not by the state justice.

(edited to correct "mistake of definition") [/B]

I agree states should not be in the business of determining which sex acts to allow. But I would feel it somewhat acceptable to have states pass laws concerning some fo the "fringe" areas such as polygamy and incest. Thus, if Utah mormons decide to be true to their religion and have multiple wives, let Utah pass the law allowing it. I guess I am for some local rights and differences from state to state. But really only for some of the fringe activities. Or at least what *I* consider fringe activities.

As to beastiality - how do you know the male beast is willing? :)

As to incest, yes I agree one time in the family is not the end of the world but it can lead to myriad interfamilial relationships and that is where the problem lies. Perhaps I am being provincial on this one?

I do note that the original idea of states being seperate entities from the federal government seems to be diminishing. Perhaps it si time we just did away with state governments? If we are going to have monolithic laws throughout the country to maintain uniformity and similar pursuit of happiness from state to state why have states at all? Just an idea.

Lurker

Diamond

27th June 2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

For the record, the term "blue laws" refers only to laws regulating activity on Sundays.

A Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13472&Version=p) conducted recently reveals that only 6 in 10 Americans nationwide believe that homosexual intercourse between consenting adults should be permitted by law. In terms of broad social attitudes, that's not an overwhelming majority. So the reason these laws are still on the books in a number of states is not that no one's gotten around to repealing archaic laws - it's that the society hasn't come to anything approaching a consensus as to whether such laws are in fact archaic.

Only 6 in 10? That's more that Bush got voting for him in 2000....

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

I agree states should not be in the business of determining which sex acts to allow. But I would feel it somewhat acceptable to have states pass laws concerning some fo the "fringe" areas such as polygamy and incest. Thus, if Utah mormons decide to be true to their religion and have multiple wives, let Utah pass the law allowing it. I guess I am for some local rights and differences from state to state. But really only for some of the fringe activities. Or at least what *I* consider fringe activities.

As to beastiality - how do you know the male beast is willing? :)

As to incest, yes I agree one time in the family is not the end of the world but it can lead to myriad interfamilial relationships and that is where the problem lies. Perhaps I am being provincial on this one?

I do note that the original idea of states being seperate entities from the federal government seems to be diminishing. Perhaps it si time we just did away with state governments? If we are going to have monolithic laws throughout the country to maintain uniformity and similar pursuit of happiness from state to state why have states at all? Just an idea.

Lurker

The problem is that there is no consistent logic to apply to determine

A) what is a "fringe" sexual endeavor and
B) why (if it fits the consensual/adult criteria) it should be
treated differently than any other old perversion MORE
people enjoy. Why only protect the rights of the sexual
majority?

So why only allow Utah Mormons to be polygamous?
Isn't that a discrimination of Idaho mormons (on a US-wide level)?

As for the beastiality:
The male beast is VISIBLY OBVIUOSLY willing :). If you take, for example dog/human-female sex, it CAN'T BE DONE if you try to "force" the dog.

About the Incest thing:
I agree with you, I would not want to live in an incestuous family. But if people WANT to do it, I think nobody has the right to tell them its wrong.

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

As to incest, yes I agree one time in the family is not the end of the world but it can lead to myriad interfamilial relationships and that is where the problem lies. Perhaps I am being provincial on this one?

Lurker

According to popular stereotype, "being provincial" would mean that you are PRO-Incest... ;)

Crossbow

27th June 2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

It isn't hate. That is what leftists say when judges legislate from the bench and Americans question it. We have a system using the US Constitution to pass laws. Judges do not need to be passing laws from the bench. That is what the legislature is for. This homosexual advocate on MSNBC said it perfectly today. He said: "We went to the USSC to get a law passed and we won."

He was right. He was absolutely right. The USSC legislated, ignoring all judicial restraint. Not only did the USSC legislate, they took sides in a cultural issue they had no business sticking their noses into. There is no consensus on homosexuality in the United States, just as there has never been a consensus on abortion.

But hey, let's do it the good old 4th world commie way and legislate it.

JK

Wrong again.

There were less than 20 states that even had anti-sodomy laws of one sort or another, and these laws were seldom applied in any of those states; therefore the court did exercise judical restraint by nullifying laws that were obsolete and unenforced.

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 05:39 AM

Quick thread hijacking:
Is JK really the guy with the most posts on this forum?

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Quick thread hijacking:
Is JK really the guy with the most posts on this forum?

No. Not even close.

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 06:44 AM

Who is then?

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
******** Jedi. You are doing a reverse-non-sequitur.
How does pedophilia follow out of a law that decriminalizes sex between CONSENTING ADULTS?

You might have fathers screwing their --> 18yo consenting daughters<-- soon if we follow through on that PATH, I agree. And although I am personally not thrilled about this kind of stuff, I am tolerant enough to let other pepole do what they want and think is right. it's simply not my, your or the government's business.

I do read Erotica on www.literotica.com (not workfriendly!) from time to time... and although I am more into group sex and plain old male-female-fun, there seems to be a HUGE crowd with incest fantasies. Who am -->I<-- to tell them they are wrong?

You are wrong. What I predict will come to pass because the same thing occurred with the homosexual lobby. It all starts with a group trying to introduce their version of 'rights', then after throwing oodles of money around at politicians they eventually wind up having their 'new rights' heard by the USSC.

There are dozens of radical sex groups eating at the trough of self-desired legitimacy. Now that homosexuality has been vindicated, those other groups will move to the front of the line seeking their 'new rights'.

And it is all about getting access to children. That is the legal prize all these radical groups are going after. The ruling yesterday by the USSC brought it one step closer to reality.

JK

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Who is then?

Why does it matter? Shanek is one. There are many that have more posts than me. And?

JK

Crossbow

27th June 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Quick thread hijacking:
Is JK really the guy with the most posts on this forum?

JK is number two, there is someone who has about 620 more posts than him, however that person (Franko) has not posted for some time so it should not be too long before JK becomes the person with the largest number of posts.

Graham

27th June 2003, 06:50 AM

Top ten posters

Franko 6706
Jedi Knight 6083
arcticpenguin 6064
Diezel 6056
shanek 5921
a_unique_person 4922
De_Bunk 4629
Girl 6 4359
Denise 4308
Tricky 4296

Many? ;)

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You are wrong. What I predict will come to pass because the same thing occurred with the homosexual lobby. It all starts with a group trying to introduce their version of 'rights', then after throwing oodles of money around at politicians they eventually wind up having their 'new rights' heard by the USSC.

There are dozens of radical sex groups eating at the trough of self-desired legitimacy. Now that homosexuality has been vindicated, those other groups will move to the front of the line seeking their 'new rights'.

And it is all about getting access to children. That is the legal prize all these radical groups are going after. The ruling yesterday by the USSC brought it one step closer to reality.

JK

********, Jedi.
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Yesterday, a law forbidding sex between consenting people was rightfully abolished. I emphasize: NOBODY GETS HURT WHEN TWO MEN HAVE GAY SEX.

Pedophiles are trying to have sex with children who CAN'T CONSENT, THEREBY HURTING THE CHILDREN IN THEIR RIGHTS TO THEIR PERSONALITY. It will never be allowed - and it doesn't even play in the same league as homosexuality. Pedophilia is not a mutual sex act and it is hurtful to one party. To PROTECT the rights of the potentially hurt party (the child), pedophilia is forbidden.

Who do you want to protect by outlawing homosexuality?

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Graham
Top ten posters

Franko 6706
Jedi Knight 6083
arcticpenguin 6064
Diezel 6056
shanek 5921
a_unique_person 4922
De_Bunk 4629
Girl 6 4359
Denise 4308
Tricky 4296

Many? ;)

I always wonder how they find the time.
For somebody with a job, even >I< spend an unhealthy amount of time on this forum. How do they manage?

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Who do you want to protect by outlawing homosexuality?

I am a moral man. I could never outlaw homosexuality in an immoral country. You give me too much credit.

JK

pgwenthold

27th June 2003, 06:59 AM

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

I always wonder how they find the time.
For somebody with a job, even >I< spend an unhealthy amount of time on this forum. How do they manage?

Those folks in the list have been posting here for years. If your panties are in a knot over the number of posts people have, have them reset the posts to zero.

Numbers of posts don't matter to me. If you want, I can get Hal to set mine back to "0" and have him delete all my old posts. Will that make you feel better about yourself?

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Those folks in the list have been posting here for years. If your panties are in a knot over the number of posts people have, have them reset the posts to zero.

Numbers of posts don't matter to me. If you want, I can get Hal to set mine back to "0" and have him delete all my old posts. Will that make you feel better about yourself?

JK

*Laugh*
You give yourself too much credit concerning the power you have over my panties.

I was just curious, especially since I have been here since the beginning of this forum, too. Mostly as a lurker, though, I have to admit.

Still, you must be spending a significant amount of your daytime posting here.

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

*Laugh*
You give yourself too much credit concerning the power you have over my panties.

I was just curious, especially since I have been here since the beginning of this forum, too. Mostly as a lurker, though, i have to admit.

Still, you must be spending a significant amount of your daytime posting here.

Not really. I post mostly at night, while there are times during some days I get into marathon sessions fighting back the legions of non-skeptics.

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:18 AM

Your name is Tyler Durden and you can't sleep?

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Your name is Tyler Durden and you can't sleep?

No. Are you stalking me? Never heard of Tyler Duden and yes, I do not sleep much. Some nights I do while others I do not. It all depends how much work I have to do and if my pals in the black flying triangle decide to show up.

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:25 AM

Watch this movie to learn about Tyler/yourself:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0137523

It will probably explain to you where you lost
all of that time the previous day ;).
Hint: It's not in a Star Destroyer...

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Watch this movie to learn about Tyler/yourself:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0137523

It will probably explain to you where you lost
all of that time the previous day ;).
Hint: It's not in a Star Destroyer...

Sorry, I don't click on foreign links. As for my 'time', being self-employed I have flexibility with my time. Or is it the time spent on this topic that you are concerned about? I am just wondering why you are suddenly a fan, when you admitted you were a lurker.

Just come out with it. It will save us both 'time'.

JK

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:44 AM

Well blackpriester? Your replies to me were on average 7 minutes until I called you out on your motive. *yawn*

It has been 24 minutes since your last reply. Hurry up because I have to make good use of my 'time' today. I am going to see 28 Days Later at the movies in an hour.

Sucks being able to do that with my 'time'. Then again, it is my 'time'. :D

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sorry, I don't click on foreign links. As for my 'time', being self-employed I have flexibility with my time. Or is it the time spent on this topic that you are concerned about? I am just wondering why you are suddenly a fan, when you admitted you were a lurker.

Just come out with it. It will save us both 'time'.

JK

???
I am self-employed myself.
I still have to finish work for my clients.

Anyway, sometimes I have more time, sometimes less.
So sometimes i post and sometimes just lurk.

The latter mostly when people like Shanek, Graham, Lurker etc. have posted my opinions and ideas already more eloquently than I could.

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well blackpriester? Your replies to me were on average 7 minutes until I called you out on your motive. *yawn*

It has been 24 minutes since your last reply. Hurry up because I have to make good use of my 'time' today. I am going to see 28 Days Later at the movies in an hour.

Sucks being able to do that with my 'time'. Then again, it is my 'time'. :D

JK

I honestly don't know what you are trying to imply...
have I hit some berve with my question about the number of your posts?

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

???
I am self-employed myself.
I still have to finish work for my clients.

Anyway, sometimes I have more time, sometimes less.
So sometimes i post and sometimes just lurk.

The latter mostly when people like Shanek, Graham, Lurker etc. have posted my opinions and ideas already more eloquently than I could.

Well hero, you didn't answer the question. You said you lurked for years and now you are a fan. Is it because I am critiquing homosexuality? It must be. :D

Check this out. You have been up my ass in this thread all morning. First you ask me if I really believe that the homosexual lobby's agenda was to get access to kids (long term). Then you ponder why "I" would want to 'outlaw' homosexuality. Then you start crawling up my ass about 'time', hinting to the fact that I should have 'other things to do" with my precious time. Then you ponder the number of posts I have.

Come on, you are pissed I am even 'talking' about homosexuality. I mean, how dare me, right? :rolleyes:

JK

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

I honestly don't know what you are trying to imply...
have I hit some berve with my question about the number of your posts?

Who I am, what the total number of posts I have, what I do with my time--it is all none of your business.

JK

Lurker

27th June 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

The problem is that there is no consistent logic to apply to determine

A) what is a "fringe" sexual endeavor and
B) why (if it fits the consensual/adult criteria) it should be
treated differently than any other old perversion MORE
people enjoy. Why only protect the rights of the sexual
majority?

So why only allow Utah Mormons to be polygamous?
Isn't that a discrimination of Idaho mormons (on a US-wide level)?

Oh, I agree defining fringe behavior is impossible. And your statement in B) is valid as well. I just feel incest should be against the law for reasons already mentioned. Polygamy, while I have no moral problem with it, I do think it is not in the best interests of those practicing it. But I am loath to tell people what to do.

Originally posted by blackpriester

As for the beastiality:
The male beast is VISIBLY OBVIUOSLY willing :). If you take, for example dog/human-female sex, it CAN'T BE DONE if you try to "force" the dog.

About the Incest thing:
I agree with you, I would not want to live in an incestuous family. But if people WANT to do it, I think nobody has the right to tell them its wrong. [/B]

Um, Mr. Priest, I can't say I have ever tried to "force" the dog so I will take your word for it. :eek:

Revisiting incest, sure people may WANT to do it. Doesn't mean they should. I recall some info about genetics saying for cousins it was no big deal. For siblings, the odds increase quite a bit, something on the order of 8x, I believe. But this would be compounded even more if there were other intermarriages. Yikes!

Of course, this argument is predicated on the people having children which is not always the case. Heck, I had a cousin that when I was younger I would have loved to jump on top of but I sure woudn't want to have children with her!

Lurker

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Well hero, you didn't answer the question. You said you lurked for years and now you are a fan. Is it because I am critiquing homosexuality? It must be. :D

Check this out. You have been up my ass in this thread all morning. First you ask me if I really believe that the homosexual lobby's agenda was to get access to kids (long term). Then you ponder why "I" would want to 'outlaw' homosexuality. Then you start crawling up my ass about 'time', hinting to the fact that I should have 'other things to do" with my precious time. Then you ponder the number of posts I have.

Come on, you are pissed I am even 'talking' about homosexuality. I mean, how dare me, right? :rolleyes:

JK

You are really a prime example of a conspiracy theorist.

I have been active in three more threads, if you bother to check.

I never asked you if you believed the homosexual agenda... etc. - I asked you if you REALLY BELIEVED WHAT YOU HAD POSTED PREVIOUSLY.

I asked everyone, including Lurker (whom I usually agree with) why he would outlaw ANY unusual, but consensual sex act, including homosexuality, beastiality, group sex etc.

And i never hinted that you should have better things to do, just wondered how you constantly find the time to post so much, while I have difficulty goind that pace even on a "slow" work day like today.

So there...

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

You are really a prime example of a conspiracy theorist.

I have been active in three more threads, if you bother to check.

I never asked you if you believed the homosexual agenda... etc. - I asked you if you REALLY BELIEVED WHAT YOU HAD POSTED PREVIOUSLY.

I asked everyone, including Lurker (whom I usually agree with) why he would outlaw ANY unusual, but consensual sex act, including homosexuality, beastiality, group sex etc.

And i never hinted that you should have better things to do, just wondered how you constantly find the time to post so much, while I have difficulty goind that pace even on a "slow" work day like today.

So there...

No, that isn't it. It isn't a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

What it is is that you came to the thread and you didn't like my opinions. My opinions bothered you. That is why you went off on the multi-post tangent of my number of posts, my 'time', etc. Just admit it, priest. That was the reason why you did that.

You got annoyed that I 'dared' to talk about homosexuality the way I did. I mean, how dare me. :rolleyes:

JK

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

Oh, I agree defining fringe behavior is impossible. And your statement in B) is valid as well. I just feel incest should be against the law for reasons already mentioned. Polygamy, while I have no moral problem with it, I do think it is not in the best interests of those practicing it. But I am loath to tell people what to do.

Um, Mr. Priest, I can't say I have ever tried to "force" the dog so I will take your word for it. :eek:

Revisiting incest, sure people may WANT to do it. Doesn't mean they should. I recall some info about genetics saying for cousins it was no big deal. For siblings, the odds increase quite a bit, something on the order of 8x, I believe. But this would be compounded even more if there were other intermarriages. Yikes!

Of course, this argument is predicated on the people having children which is not always the case. Heck, I had a cousin that when I was younger I would have loved to jump on top of but I sure woudn't want to have children with her!

Lurker

Glad to see we're coming closer in opinions again - was already starting to doubt myself ;).

As for the incest: as you say yourself, as long as there are no children involved (in age as well as in "results of the breeding"), i don't see any problem with it on a societal scale. it should be up to every person to decide if they want to do it.

And even if siblings decide to be incestuous AND have kids... so what? Who are we to decide what kind of risk they should take with their breeding? We don't "force-abort" handicapped fetuses of "normal" people either.

I agreee with you that we shoudl ADVISE against it and teach in school why it might be bad (BTW: Even the eightfold-increased chances of having a handicapped kid are still pretty slim...)

As for "how to do it with dogs":
Just goes to show which other forums I have lurked at in my glorious past - curiosity never killed cat, dog or stallion ;).

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No, that isn't it. It isn't a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

What it is is that you came to the thread and you didn't like my opinions. My opinions bothered you. That is why you went off on the multi-post tangent of my number of posts, my 'time', etc. Just admit it, priest. That was the reason why you did that.

You got annoyed that I 'dared' to talk about homosexuality the way I did. I mean, how dare me. :rolleyes:

JK

********.
I leave everyone the right to their own opinion.
I think your opinions (the ones I have read in the past) are mostly stupid and based on bad or non-existing evidence,
but if they weren't, there'd be no need for dicussing them.

You still haven't explained why there should be a law against homosexual conduct.

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

********.
I leve everyone the right to their own opinion.
I think your opinions (the ones I have read in the past) are mostly stupid and based on bad or non-existing evidence,
but if they weren't, there'd be no need for dicussing them.

You still haven't explained why there should be a law against homosexual conduct.

Yeah...right. Look priest, I know the homosexual lobby has pretty thin skin. Don't take what I say personally. I know I am one of the few moral Americans left in the United States. You guys get to do whatever you want. I mean hell, I am a lowly citizen with no rights in this country. You guys have all the rights. No need to attack me for expressing a moral opinion about immoral behavior. My opinion doesn't matter and the USSC proved it yesterday. Just ignore me like the USSC did.

JK

Lurker

27th June 2003, 08:15 AM

blackpriest,

Regarding incest, we'll just have to disagree there. I agree even after 8x the odds are still long. Perhaps if birth control were 100% effective I would be more amenable. Anyways, it is hard enough charting out my family tree with no incest. If there were, branches would intersect into a muddled mess. No thanks!

Regarding JK, I decided long ago to ignore. I suggest you do likewise. Unless you like that sort of repartee. He is just here to get rises out of people. IMO

Lurker

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:16 AM

*Laugh*

Are you trying to reduce my "credibility" by implying I am gay?
Listen, I will freely admit to you that ANIMAL SEX turns me on!
How is that? Does THAT make me immoral?

I think not.
I am just being honest about my persona, while you are probably trying to overcompensate your gay urges by being "extra moral".

And that is your right, too.
You can be against gayness and immorality wherever you want.

But in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, everybody in this country essentially has the right to pursue happiness as he wishes - as long as he harms no other human being.

So these are the scenarios:
While you would harm homosexuals by forbidding them to fornicate as they please, they do not HARM YOU IN THE LEAST by practicing their sexuality in their bedrooms. Ergo, they should be allowed to fornicate, and you are allowed to complain about it.

Just don't expect your complaints to have any legal importance.
That would be unconstitutional.

Lurker

27th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
*Laugh*

Are you trying to reduce my "credibility" by implying I am gay?
Listen, I will freely admit to you that ANIMAL SEX turns me on!
How is that? Does THAT make me immoral?

I think not.
I am just being honest about my persona, while you are probably trying to overcompensate your gay urges by being "extra moral".

LOL LOL LOL!

Hey, everyone has things that secretly turn them on. I won't share mine but JK would probably call me immoral too! :p

Lurker

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
blackpriest,

Regarding incest, we'll just have to disagree there. I agree even after 8x the odds are still long. Perhaps if birth control were 100% effective I would be more amenable. Anyways, it is hard enough charting out my family tree with no incest. If there were, branches would intersect into a muddled mess. No thanks!

Regarding JK, I decided long ago to ignore. I suggest you do likewise. Unless you like that sort of repartee. He is just here to get rises out of people. IMO

Lurker

Agreed to disagree!
Although I have to admit that the shape of my family tree would not play any part in my decison-making process about humping a delicious piece of female-cousin-ass. The implications about future family relations would, though.

Fortunately for my family tree, all my cousins are rather unfortunate-looking, anyway ;).

Tmy

27th June 2003, 08:20 AM

Dispite poplular belief we do not legislate morality. We legislate to keep society from imploding.

This case is no big deal. We all should be happy. In some states these sodomy laws include hetro sex too. WHo wants to be limited to to missonary sex with a spouce.!!

Soubrette

27th June 2003, 08:20 AM

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

LOL LOL LOL!

Hey, everyone has things that secretly turn them on. I won't share mine but JK would probably call me immoral too! :p

Lurker

I also have (but tha is all behind me!) extensive real-world experience with dominance, group sex, double and triple penetration of the female form and little acting-outs in public. Guess San Francisco was the natural choice in cities to move to ;).

Best thing is, I'm admitting all of that just to turn JK's mechanism around on him... may he get the appropriate rise out of it ;).

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette

but the females always look so bored :confused:

Sou

Which sites have you been looking at, nasty girl ;)?

I won't post direct links on this family friendly board, but at
Ian's Zoo links (can you figure out the URL?) you might find different fare, even some real world females who really
like what they do.

There's a kink for everyone...

Clancie

27th June 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

As for the beastiality:
The male beast is VISIBLY OBVIUOSLY willing . If you take, for example dog/human-female sex, it CAN'T BE DONE if you try to "force" the dog.
Well, the problem is that you could never make a law that says "bestiality is okay for women, but not for men."

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, the problem is that you could never make a law that says "bestiality is okay for women, but not for men." [/B]

Quite correct.
You could say though, that the animal must "come on" to you, not vice versa. That would effectively take care of the matter...

corplinx

27th June 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Premiere!
The first post in which I DISAGREE with Lurker
(and Corplinx, but that is kind of normal...!).

WHY in all heaven's name should states be able to legislate some forms of sexual behavior (as long as they are based on consensuality)? How do such laws not inhibit the individual's pursuit of happiness?

In my opininon, both consensual incest and beastiality (with "consenting beasts", i.e. male animal, female human) should be perfectly legal. The latter actually IS in almost all European countries, for example - and I don't see lots of beast fornication going on there. Just let the people do what they want - I don't care if my neighbor does it with his rubber boots or his car exhaust.

If you had read further, you would have seen I basically said that consensual sex between adults be they related, same sex, eskimos, etc is no business of the governments'.

My point was the Rick Santorum mentioned (in his own tactless way) that this could open up the federal courts to strike down other state laws regulating sex. Having sex regulated at the state level is a good thing since its a nice kludge for keeping sex between adults and minors illegal. We all know that some youths mature faster than others, and nambla will be pointing this out in a federal court near you soon now that there is precedent.

subgenius

27th June 2003, 09:29 AM

A couple of things are interesting:
The repeated references to "up my ..." by someone against homosexuality.
And his offer to have all his previous posts deleted. It would be nice not to be caught in previous errors wouldn't it?

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 09:39 AM

I read and know this corplinx.
Sorry for being careless enough not to mention it specifically ;).

I agree with you about the consequences of the decision,
a rare occurence. Unlike you though, I find NAMBLA's request
(if it IS one of theirs - never spoke with any of them)
to lower the age of consent quite reasonable.

As I have also said in an earlier post of mine...

gnome

27th June 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Ricomise

Of course, Scalia would disagree about the amount of flexibility the Constitution should have. (He prefers an admantium rod Constitution where what the founders said is what they meant damn it, and who are we to muck with it.)

I think rather it's "What the founders meant is what I say they meant."

WMT1

27th June 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
The fear that I have is when nambla tries to bring a case to federal court where sex between an adult and a 16 year old is deemed lawful since the 16 year old is very mature.

You seem to be particularly bothered by this idea. You do realize that many 16-year-olds are sexually active anyway, don't you? I remember what it was like being 16, and frankly, I don't see what the big deal is.

WMT1

27th June 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by repairman
By definition the sex between an adult and a teenager (pre-18) cannot be consentual because a minor cannot give consent.

Unless you're confining yourself to legal definitions, my own "pre-18" experiences would strongly suggest otherwise. :D

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

You seem to be particularly bothered by this idea. You do realize that many 16-year-olds are sexually active anyway, don't you? I remember what it was like being 16, and frankly, I don't see what the big deal is.

Thank you, WMT1...
I think it's mostly an American thing, where 19yo-parents suddenly forget what it was like - two and three years ago... when they f**ked like rabbits and finally got pregnant

As I had already mentioned, most European countries have consent-ages of 13, and the world is stil not ending. Which doesn't mean that I'd not PERSONALLY smash the face of a 30yo who'd try to "score" my own 14yo daughter. But that is between me and Mr. Chickenhawk. Nothing a court should care about - or you have those weird trials, where a 19yo boy who is hated by his 17yo girlfriend's parents gets thrown into jail for statuatory rape...

repairman

27th June 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Unless you're confining yourself to legal definitions, my own "pre-18" experiences would strongly suggest otherwise.

Since we were discussing a Supreme Court rulling I was confining myself to a strictly legal definition.

It has also been my experience that 16 YOA can make an informed decision about sex. ;)

repairman

27th June 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by blackpriester

As I had already mentioned, most European countries have consent-ages of 13, and the world is stil not ending.

I personaly think that 13yo is way to young to consent. 16yo seems much more reasonable to me. There is alot of maturity gained in those three years. I do however feel that for life in the USA having a baby at 16yoa can seriously limit your future. I do say CAN because my wife has a very sucessful friend that had a baby at 15. However she worked exceddingly hard and had ALOT of support from her very sucessful parents which I think made all the diference.

Crossbow

27th June 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...

Check this out. You have been up my ass in this thread all morning. First you ask me if I really believe that the homosexual lobby's agenda was to get access to kids (long term). Then you ponder why "I" would want to 'outlaw' homosexuality. Then you start crawling up my ass about 'time', hinting to the fact that I should have 'other things to do" with my precious time. Then you ponder the number of posts I have.

...

JK

Freudian Light Sabre Duel in progress!

:p

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

You seem to be particularly bothered by this idea. You do realize that many 16-year-olds are sexually active anyway, don't you? I remember what it was like being 16, and frankly, I don't see what the big deal is.

That is the argument other perverse groups will be using when they demand sex with children and have it legalized by the USSC. It is the next step in the immoral process.

JK

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Judges do not need to be passing laws from the bench.

They don't. Never have.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This homosexual advocate on MSNBC said it perfectly today. He said: "We went to the USSC to get a law passed and we won."

He was right. He was absolutely right.

No, he was wrong. Absolutely wrong. So you have something in common. Do I hear wedding bells?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The USSC legislated,

Wrong....

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

ignoring all judicial restraint.

Wrong.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Not only did the USSC legislate,

They didn't...

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

they took sides in a cultural issue they had no business sticking their noses into.

Wrong. It was a case before them. They are the only ones whos business it was.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There is no consensus on homosexuality in the United States, just as there has never been a consensus on abortion.

There is no consensus on anything in the United States. With one exception - everyone agrees you're an idiot.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by subgenius

I demonstrated when this guy came to a local predominately gay community.
We created a "hate-free zone." And even invited him in to the local church. He declined. He is, I believe, and ashamed to admit is a lawyer and/or his accomplices are and make a point of trying to get the local authorities to overstep their bounds in restraining their provocative behavior so they can sue them. FYI.
God Hates......anyone? How sick can you get? Speaking on behalf of God.

People seem to get so worked up by him. I find him to be more of a joke than a threat. It is clear to all that he is a nut. I think the more ddangerous ones are those like Pat Robertson who is able to hide his loony views from most people (except those of us who are intelligent - like many on this board).

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The court can make it illegal to marry one's sister, but not to have sex with her (not that I would).

If it makes you feel better, I wouldn't have sex with your sister either. :eek:

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by blackpriester

Still, you must be spending a significant amount of your daytime posting here.

He does it during study hall in high school.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by blackpriester

???
I am self-employed myself.
I still have to finish work for my clients.

JK is "self employed" cutting lawns since high school is out for the summer. Must be raining today.

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
JK is "self employed" cutting lawns since high school is out for the summer. Must be raining today.

Yeah, and when I drive through McDonald's you ask me: "Sir, would you like some fries with your Big Mac?"

JK

The Central Scrutinizer

27th June 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Yeah, and when I drive through McDonald's you ask me: "Sir, would you like some fries with your Big Mac?"

JK

Perhaps because I own about 20 McDonalds, and I pitch in from time to time. And didn't you mean to say when you "ride" through McDonalds in your mommies car?

LOL!! Loser.

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Perhaps because I own about 20 McDonalds, and I pitch in from time to time. And didn't you mean to say when you "ride" through McDonalds in your mommies car?

LOL!! Loser.

Yeah, you own 20 of those silly McDonald's hats you have to wear while you are flipping burgers. :rolleyes:

JK

Dr. Popalot

28th June 2003, 08:05 AM

An interesting thing I notice no one seems to be discussing that will result from this decision is the impact this will have on the prosecution of persons engaging in prostution. If I correctly interpret this decision, this ruling could be used to throw out all attempts to prosecute. If it is an invasion of provacy to prosecute consenting homosexual adults, then it is equally invasive to prosecute consenting heterosexuals.

Attrayant

28th June 2003, 09:41 AM

From the majority opinion:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution.

Dr. Popalot

28th June 2003, 10:05 PM

Attrayant,
Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I missed that.
Since prostitution is out, how does this affect lewd bahavior. I have seen on tv that many times during a police sting operation for prostitution they often have someone agree to have sex with the undercover officer for no money. They then arrest that person for lewd behavior. With this ruling I don't see how this will be possible any longer.

subgenius

28th June 2003, 10:21 PM

I don't know how anyone reaches the conclusion this legalizes prostitution of any kind. It doesn't.

Jedi Knight

28th June 2003, 10:37 PM

USSC decision (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33316) frees hundreds of dangerous child molestors in California alone.

The USSC did it "for the children".

This whole "homosexual rights" crusade is going to culminate with legalized pedophilia, as I accurately predicted.

JK

subgenius

28th June 2003, 11:15 PM

He's living in his own private Idaho.
I will personally give him $1000 for every child molester freed because of this decision, if he will give me $100 for every one that he predicted would be released that wasn't. (Hundreds according to the Patriarchal Fascist Terrorist News)
Taking the bet?
I bet not.
Never been wrong about anything, just love to yell "Fire" in crowded theaters.

subgenius

28th June 2003, 11:20 PM

The sky is falling!!!! Even Sandra Day O'Connor is a Matriarchal Terrorist Commie Pedophile.

subgenius

28th June 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Brown
The opinion is now available at this web site. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html)

The Supreme Court overruled the Bowers case, and used some pretty strong language in doing so.

I recommend reading Justice Kennedy's opinon and Justice Scalia's dissent. Justice O'Connor's concurrence is all right, but the really interesting stuff is in the other two opinions.

Justice Kennedy's opinion is a hymn to personal liberty and privacy (and an outright vindication for Justice Stevens), but leaves several important legal questions unanswered (which Justice Scalia points out in the opening paragraphs of his opinion). Justice Scalia's opinion is, in my judgment, dripping with irony. (It also includes quite a few non sequiturs... usually he's not as careless with his logic as this.)

(Un)Interesting isn't it how some who claim to love America's freedom are really only interested in protecting personal liberty and privacy when they're told to do so by the their puppeteers, or when its their own liberties and privacy that are at stake. They don't know who their own true protectors are.

subgenius

29th June 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
USSC decision (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33316) frees hundreds of dangerous child molestors in California alone.

The USSC did it "for the children".

This whole "homosexual rights" crusade is going to culminate with legalized pedophilia, as I accurately predicted.

JK
So you've read it?
Or is it like the statue that you didn't see that you got so worked up over?

davefoc

29th June 2003, 06:13 AM

This is the first time that I have read any supreme court decision. I had expected to find the logic of the decision more clearly spelled out. It may be in there, but it will take a more careful reading than I gave it for me to understand it.

One thing, I noticed, was that the court merely said this case was not about prostitution. The court did not say that the logic of this case could not be used to find against prostitution.

It seemed like, with a lot of words, the court said two things:
1. There is some fundamental right for consenting adults to behave as they wish in private.
2. There is a violation of equal protection because the texas law only applied to homosexuals.

The argument for item 1 seemed to be that most states don't proscribe the activities that were proscribed by Texas, so , that means that Texas must be wrong. Also there seemed to be a similar argument that the world court doesn't agree with the Texas law either so that really must mean the Texas law is wrong.

The argument for item 2 seems like it might be compelling, but I think the court found that laws against sodomy in general were not constitutional even if they weren't limited to just homsexuals. But I'm not sure of that.

The question I have about this decision is exactly what laws can the states make regarding private actions between consenting individuals.
1. Can the state set set the age of consent or is that now a supreme court issue?
2. Can the same logic be applied to prostitution?
3. Can the same logic be applied to prevent states from shutting down gay clubs as was done to reduce the spread of AIDS in San Francisco?
4. Is the supreme court now in charge of deciding what kinds of incest are legal or is this still a state issue?

Nova Land

29th June 2003, 07:17 AM

Jedi Knight :

USSC decision frees hundreds of dangerous child molestors in California alone.

The USSC did it "for the children".
and
subgenius:

He's living in his own private Idaho.
I will personally give him $1000 for every child molester freed because of this decision...
Because of Jedi's minimalist writing style ("USCC decision' instead of "an entirely different USCC decision"), some people may have assumed he was talking about the one that is the subject of this thread and missed the fact he was now referring to something else -- a decision which did, indeed (according to the site he linked to) free hundreds of child molestors.

That decision had nothing to do with homosexuality -- it concerned how long after an act of molestation occurs that charges can still be brought.

Just thought I'd point that out, in case there was some mis-communication going on. I think subgenius's reference to "this" decision refers to the one we were talking about rather than the new one Jedi is now bringing up.

subgenius

29th June 2003, 08:36 AM

Nova thanks for the heads up. I most humbly sit corrected, with apologies to one and all.
As my sig says...

Jedi Knight

29th June 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
The sky is falling!!!! Even Sandra Day O'Connor is a Matriarchal Terrorist Commie Pedophile.

Wow, I didn't know she was.

It is important to understand, however, that the USSC is not a conservative court but radical leftist, and any claim that the USSC is conservative is an Alice in Wonderland delusion.

JK

Attrayant

29th June 2003, 09:25 AM

7/9ths of the current supreme court are republican appointees. You'd have to be missing several key brain lobes to posit that republical presidents are conspiring to build a "radical leftist" supreme court.

Jedi Knight

29th June 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Attrayant
7/9ths of the current supreme court are republican appointees. You'd have to be missing several key brain lobes to posit that republical presidents are conspiring to build a "radical leftist" supreme court.

No, you are right, they were appointed by Republicans a long time ago. Now they have sold out America to the radical left.

JK

Nova Land

29th June 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...the USSC is not a conservative court but radical leftist...
D@rn it! Now I'm going to have to change how I identify myself politically yet again! I used to think of myself as being somewhat on the left. You, and others, have indicated that the things I believe in put me in the radical left -- okay, fine, no problem, "radical leftist" sounds cool.

But now you're saying the USSC is radical left, and I have no desire whatsoever to be lumped with them. I know I'm several notches farther to the left than they are. Let's see, one position over could be ultra-radical left, two positions over could be super-ultra-radical left, but I'm about three positions over and adding another prefix is going to get unwieldier than I'd like for my self-identification label. What do moderates such as Rush Limbaugh suggest as an accurate and non-pejorative label for people such as myself?

(NOTE: Also, could you provide the preferred terms for people who are farther to the left than I am. You may find it hard to believe, but I know of quite a few such people. Non-pejorative terms, please -- according to Tammy Bruce, using insults against one's political opponents is an attempt to stifle free speech, and I know you wouldn't want to do that.)

davefoc

29th June 2003, 11:03 AM

I .hope that at some point this thread can talk about the legal theory for the decision. There was a moment where I thought Corplinx was moving the thread in that direction, but it didn't last.

Maybe that wasn't the point of this thread, maybe another thread on just the legal theory of the decision would be good? .

Attrayant

29th June 2003, 11:49 AM

If we haven't gotten there in 5 pages, I don't hold much hope.

davefoc

29th June 2003, 12:36 PM

think you're right. I'm going to start a new thread. Hope that Brown, AS, Corplinx and others interested in legal aspects aren't too burned out on this to feel like commenting.

renata

29th June 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
Nova thanks for the heads up. I most humbly sit corrected, with apologies to one and all.
As my sig says...

FYI

The statute decision released some accused and convicted pedophiles in California

http://www.latimes.com/la-me-sexabuse28jun28,1,5900223.story

It was 2:26 a.m., and Lawrence Lovell was one of the first out. The 55-year defrocked priest awaiting trial on charges of molesting four altar boys at the historic San Gabriel Mission left Los Angeles County Jail after less than a week behind bars.

Twelve hours later, Michael Wempe left his jail cell with a smile on his face. The 63-year-old retired priest, whose bail had been set two weeks ago at $2 million, had been charged with molesting five boys 20 years ago.

Both men have denied the charges against them. At hearings next week, their cases are likely to be dismissed, prosecutors say.

And so it went Friday, as prosecutors, defense attorneys and the state attorney general's office scrambled to come to grips with the repercussions of a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating a California law that had allowed decades-old child molestation cases to be prosecuted.

Lovell and Wempe are among hundreds of people — some convicted, some confessed, some still awaiting trial — who will be released from jails and prisons across California or whose cases will be dropped as a result of Thursday's decision.

The five justices in the high court majority ruled that California had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto — after the fact — laws when the Legislature decided to change the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases and made the new limit retroactive to cover long-ago cases.

For many prosecutors, victims' advocates and police, the court's decision was hard to take.

The affected cases all involve not just allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating evidence, which was required under the 1994 law that the high court struck down.

davefoc

29th June 2003, 01:05 PM

Link to new thread for discussing legal theory of the case:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869979356#post1869979356

NoZed Avenger

29th June 2003, 01:10 PM

Actually, I kinda hope JK sets himself up as a moderate. I have always wanted to be a "militant leftist" and his taking the political center would be about the only way to do that.

I hear they get all the chicks, but that's probably only because of their long-hair, loud music, and hippy ways.

:) NA

subgenius

29th June 2003, 01:44 PM

Renata: that's where the confusion came in. The one that resulted in the releases was not the recent one that is the subject of this thread.

renata

29th June 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
Renata: that's where the confusion came in. The one that resulted in the releases was not the recent one that is the subject of this thread.

The decisions were released on the same day I believe, so they are equally recent, but they are absolutely different decisions, different cases, etc. But I can see how it can be confusing- "today the court decided pedophiles need to be released and that homosexual behavior is legal "

Jedi Knight

29th June 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by renata
But I can see how it can be confusing- "today the court decided pedophiles need to be released and that homosexual behavior is legal "

That was the intent of the decision by the USSC--to give legal protection to all forms of sexual behavior, especially sex involving children.

JK

kuroyume0161

29th June 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That was the intent of the decision by the USSC--to give legal protection to all forms of sexual behavior, especially sex involving children.

JK

Looks like it's time for me to go chasin' ep one of dem dere eight year olds down the street. Yeee Haaaa! ;)

1. The US is a prudish bunch of idiots. Human sexual changes start at about 11 to 13, teenagers are fully sexually equipped by around 14 to 16, there being differences between the sexes in when this occurs. Now, I respect the idea of protecting adolescents from relationships with mature adults, adolescents still being considered the responsibility of their parents, but this crap about 18 being age-of-consent is ridiculous (as has been well stated about 17yo and 19yo consenting partners). I've known 15yos who had more sex and sexual knowledge than I had at 30.

2. Legal protection is given when one group is being unjustly mistreated by another (rape, murder, theft, slavery, harassment, unequal rights, etc.) - including predatory sexual behavior. Consentual adult sex in private residence is NOT (I repeat, NOT) an act requiring legal protection (or restriction). Morality is not legislated, only dictated by religious beliefs. I have no religious beliefs, so you can take your morality and, well, shove it.

3. These repetitive jaunts at "slippery slope" analogies can only be a reactionary fear response. Almost as bad as, "You free the slaves, the next thing you know, all the 'white' people will have to leave." Total bull$h!t. There is no correspondence between protecting the rights of consenting individuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes and pedophilia, rape, child molestation, and what not. Might I add that statistically, child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.

4. Heck, why not legalize prostitution? My feeling is that it would alleviate the dirth and danger of the profession, allow for the significant decrease in disease transmission, and also alleviate the counts of deviant behavior associated with sexual frustration (etc.) that occur since there is no legal means to have sex outside of a happenstance consentual relationship (a somewhat rare thing indeed for some). They say that it's the oldest profession: it will not go away any time this or the next or the millenium to follow that. Might as well use it to our advantage. Only moral, self-righteous idiots have a thing against a natural process: sex.

5. Ah, so Leviticus makes the laws in the United States, does he? Barring my preponderance of evidence that most of the Bible is fantasy, myth, fairy tale, and a hodge-podge of various religions from the first century, what has it to do with the rights, liberties, and laws in this country?

Homosexuality (sexuality in general, even) is almost assuredly determined by genetics, maybe some environment thrown in. Those who says it's a choice are full of themselves and I wish the worst in their lives to happen on a daily basis. There is very strong evidence that it is not a "choice", and has already been removed as an abnormal mental condition. It has been observed in other species, which attests to its existence as a natural occurence. What's next, laws forbidding homosexual behavior between animals? Or maybe we should just make sex in general illegal. Well, that'll end this farce of a species soon enough.

I hate to go off the topic, but take your religous babble morality and use it on yourself. This country is only going to "hell" because people like you keep it going in that general direction. Human beings should have the right to do ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME as long as it does not harm another human being, and in some cases, needlessly harm other living organisms. Beyond that, you can say what you like, just don't try to make it law.

I'm tired of Christians telling how much they suffer and get no slack as other minorities get discriminated against, punished by unjust laws, and suffer the wrath of ignorance. You should be ashamed to call yourself humans.

Kuroyume
Atheist, Freethinker, Humanist, Skeptic, Homosexual, Science-lover, Materialist.

Tricky

29th June 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, you are right, they were appointed by Republicans a long time ago. Now they have sold out America to the radical left.
Unless you have evidence of them accepting bribes from the Left (which is much poorer than the Right), then "selling out" is probably not the correct term. In fact, only in the Supreme Court, where judges are appointed for life, do the members no longer have to kiss up to moneyed supporters. Maybe there is another word for why so many Supreme Court justices throughout history have broken away from their right-wing origins. Maybe the word is "wisdom".

Bjorn

29th June 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by kuroyume0161

Looks like it's time for me to go chasin' ep one of dem dere eight year olds down the street. Yeee Haaaa! ;)

1. The US is a prudish bunch of idiots. Human sexual changes start at about 11 to 13, teenagers are fully sexually equipped by around 14 to 16, there being differences between the sexes in when this occurs. Now, I respect the idea of protecting adolescents from relationships with mature adults, adolescents still being considered the responsibility of their parents, but this crap about 18 being age-of-consent is ridiculous (as has been well stated about 17yo and 19yo consenting partners). I've known 15yos who had more sex and sexual knowledge than I had at 30.

2. Legal protection is given when one group is being unjustly mistreated by another (rape, murder, theft, slavery, harassment, unequal rights, etc.) - including predatory sexual behavior. Consentual adult sex in private residence is NOT (I repeat, NOT) an act requiring legal protection (or restriction). Morality is not legislated, only dictated by religious beliefs. I have no religious beliefs, so you can take your morality and, well, shove it.

3. These repetitive jaunts at "slippery slope" analogies can only be a reactionary fear response. Almost as bad as, "You free the slaves, the next thing you know, all the 'white' people will have to leave." Total bull$h!t. There is no correspondence between protecting the rights of consenting individuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes and pedophilia, rape, child molestation, and what not. Might I add that statistically, child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.

4. Heck, why not legalize prostitution? My feeling is that it would alleviate the dirth and danger of the profession, allow for the significant decrease in disease transmission, and also alleviate the counts of deviant behavior associated with sexual frustration (etc.) that occur since there is no legal means to have sex outside of a happenstance consentual relationship (a somewhat rare thing indeed for some). They say that it's the oldest profession: it will not go away any time this or the next or the millenium to follow that. Might as well use it to our advantage. Only moral, self-righteous idiots have a thing against a natural process: sex.

5. Ah, so Leviticus makes the laws in the United States, does he? Barring my preponderance of evidence that most of the Bible is fantasy, myth, fairy tale, and a hodge-podge of various religions from the first century, what has it to do with the rights, liberties, and laws in this country?

Homosexuality (sexuality in general, even) is almost assuredly determined by genetics, maybe some environment thrown in. Those who says it's a choice are full of themselves and I wish the worst in their lives to happen on a daily basis. There is very strong evidence that it is not a "choice", and has already been removed as an abnormal mental condition. It has been observed in other species, which attests to its existence as a natural occurence. What's next, laws forbidding homosexual behavior between animals? Or maybe we should just make sex in general illegal. Well, that'll end this farce of a species soon enough.

I hate to go off the topic, but take your religous babble morality and use it on yourself. This country is only going to "hell" because people like you keep it going in that general direction. Human beings should have the right to do ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME as long as it does not harm another human being, and in some cases, needlessly harm other living organisms. Beyond that, you can say what you like, just don't try to make it law.

I'm tired of Christians telling how much they suffer and get no slack as other minorities get discriminated against, punished by unjust laws, and suffer the wrath of ignorance. You should be ashamed to call yourself humans.

Kuroyume
Atheist, Freethinker, Humanist, Skeptic, Homosexual, Science-lover, Materialist. IMHO, well said! :p

Jedi Knight

30th June 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Looks like it's time for me to go chasin' ep one of dem dere eight year olds down the street. Yeee Haaaa! ;)

The USSC made it legal so it will be expected behavior from the homosexual lobby.

1. The US is a prudish bunch of idiots. Human sexual changes start at about 11 to 13, teenagers are fully sexually equipped by around 14 to 16, there being differences between the sexes in when this occurs. Now, I respect the idea of protecting adolescents from relationships with mature adults, adolescents still being considered the responsibility of their parents, but this crap about 18 being age-of-consent is ridiculous (as has been well stated about 17yo and 19yo consenting partners). I've known 15yos who had more sex and sexual knowledge than I had at 30.

Well naturally. That was the objective of the USSC decision--open access to children for sexual exploitation by extremist groups.

2. Legal protection is given when one group is being unjustly mistreated by another (rape, murder, theft, slavery, harassment, unequal rights, etc.) - including predatory sexual behavior. Consentual adult sex in private residence is NOT (I repeat, NOT) an act requiring legal protection (or restriction). Morality is not legislated, only dictated by religious beliefs. I have no religious beliefs, so you can take your morality and, well, shove it.

The foundation of all law in western civilization was founded by moral law.

3. These repetitive jaunts at "slippery slope" analogies can only be a reactionary fear response. Almost as bad as, "You free the slaves, the next thing you know, all the 'white' people will have to leave." Total bull$h!t. There is no correspondence between protecting the rights of consenting individuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes and pedophilia, rape, child molestation, and what not. Might I add that statistically, child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals.

The country is at the top of the slope and beginning to rapidly slide down the slope. Unless you are psychic, there is no way to determine how it will all end. It could end very poorly. The future is unknown.

4. Heck, why not legalize prostitution? My feeling is that it would alleviate the dirth and danger of the profession, allow for the significant decrease in disease transmission, and also alleviate the counts of deviant behavior associated with sexual frustration (etc.) that occur since there is no legal means to have sex outside of a happenstance consentual relationship (a somewhat rare thing indeed for some). They say that it's the oldest profession: it will not go away any time this or the next or the millenium to follow that. Might as well use it to our advantage. Only moral, self-righteous idiots have a thing against a natural process: sex.

Might as well legalize prostitution. Homosexuality is all about sex anyway so legalizing prostitution won't elevate the perversion already thrust upon Americans.

5. Ah, so Leviticus makes the laws in the United States, does he? Barring my preponderance of evidence that most of the Bible is fantasy, myth, fairy tale, and a hodge-podge of various religions from the first century, what has it to do with the rights, liberties, and laws in this country?

It is why homosexuals are abandoned by God. Hard to disprove the bible and books of the bible, huh. Many homosexuals are atheists simply because the bible does not welcome them, as Leviticus proves. Interesting how 2,000 years ago a book was written about a behavior that suddenly in the last ten years became "cool and fashionable".

Homosexuality (sexuality in general, even) is almost assuredly determined by genetics, maybe some environment thrown in. Those who says it's a choice are full of themselves and I wish the worst in their lives to happen on a daily basis. There is very strong evidence that it is not a "choice", and has already been removed as an abnormal mental condition. It has been observed in other species, which attests to its existence as a natural occurence. What's next, laws forbidding homosexual behavior between animals? Or maybe we should just make sex in general illegal. Well, that'll end this farce of a species soon enough.

There has never been a gene identifying homosexual behavior. There are also many documented cases of former homosexuals who upon realizing the perversion of their lifestyle adjusted their behavior.

I hate to go off the topic, but take your religous babble morality and use it on yourself. This country is only going to "hell" because people like you keep it going in that general direction. Human beings should have the right to do ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME as long as it does not harm another human being, and in some cases, needlessly harm other living organisms. Beyond that, you can say what you like, just don't try to make it law.

It isn't my religion--it is mankind's religion.

I'm tired of Christians telling how much they suffer and get no slack as other minorities get discriminated against, punished by unjust laws, and suffer the wrath of ignorance. You should be ashamed to call yourself humans.

Interesting that you brought up the word "suffer". The average age at death of a homosexual in San Francisco is 39. Should Christians be ashamed for trying to draw people from that self-destructive behavior?

Kuroyume
Atheist, Freethinker, Humanist, Skeptic, Homosexual, Science-lover, Materialist.

Obviously. :rolleyes:

JK

blackpriester

30th June 2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
Attrayant,
Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I missed that.
Since prostitution is out, how does this affect lewd bahavior. I have seen on tv that many times during a police sting operation for prostitution they often have someone agree to have sex with the undercover officer for no money. They then arrest that person for lewd behavior. With this ruling I don't see how this will be possible any longer.

Can anybody please tell me
a) What is wrong with prostitution (why should it be banned)?
b) Why "agreeing to have sex for no money" can be interpreted
as "lewd behavior" and get a person to jail?

Once again, I refer to Europe - Prostitution is legal most anywhere here and everything is just fine and dandy!
Or just look to Nevada, they don't seem to have a problem
with it either...

MRC_Hans

30th June 2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester
Can anybody please tell me
a) What is wrong with prostitution (why should it be banned)?

Lots of things wrong with prostitution: Devaluation of humans, loss of self-respect, health issues. Surely, there exist some "happy" prostitutes and some well-balanced customers, but the general conditions in the business are far from what we normaly see as a good and healthy working climate. The reason it should not be banned is that no exmples exist of this solving ANY of the problems. It will not stop prostitution, only incriminate and maginalize an already vulnerable group of people.

b) Why "agreeing to have sex for no money" can be interpreted
as "lewd behavior" and get a person to jail?

To agree to have sex with a stranger for no compensation is basically lewd. It can get you into jail if you live in a country where the legislation is sufficiently bigotted to make such a thing a criminal offence. --- Provided the police force is sufficiently bigotted to test for it in the first place.

Once again, I refer to Europe - Prostitution is legal most anywhere here and everything is just fine and dandy!

Prostitutes are to a large extent a vulnerable and marginalized group in Europe too, but while I would not call things "fine and dandy", we have happily avoided making it into a crime (in most countries).

Or just look to Nevada, they don't seem to have a problem
with it either... I have no idea about Nevada ;)

On the more general subject here, on making homosexual behaviour legal: The claim that this is a step on the road to legalize child abuse is cruelly absurd. Logically, it is a case of poisoning the well.

The mere fact that the Bible deals with homosexuality shows us that such behaviour has always existed. Whether you approve of it or not, it is within the range of human sexual activity. There is absolutely nothing that links it to to child abuse more than any other form of sexual behaviour. Indeed paedophiles come from all kinds of orientations.

As for the observation that some homosexuals are able to "change" and live like heterosexuals, anybody interested the least bit in facts will know that we are not looking a binary option, but at a continous scale. A proportion of the population are to some degree bisexual, and can choose to suppress part of their sexuality in order to comply with the culture they live in. Just like a sizable proportion of the (esp. male) population would be polygamous, if this was culturally acceptable.

Hans

blackpriester

30th June 2003, 04:25 AM

blackpriester

30th June 2003, 04:39 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blackpriester
Can anybody please tell me
a) What is wrong with prostitution (why should it be banned)?

Lots of things wrong with prostitution: Devaluation of humans, loss of self-respect, health issues. Surely, there exist some "happy" prostitutes and some well-balanced customers, but the general conditions in the business are far from what we normaly see as a good and healthy working climate. The reason it should not be banned is that no exmples exist of this solving ANY of the problems. It will not stop prostitution, only incriminate and maginalize an already vulnerable group of people.

b) Why "agreeing to have sex for no money" can be interpreted
as "lewd behavior" and get a person to jail?

To agree to have sex with a stranger for no compensation is basically lewd. It can get you into jail if you live in a country where the legislation is sufficiently bigotted to make such a thing a criminal offence. --- Provided the police force is sufficiently bigotted to test for it in the first place.

Once again, I refer to Europe - Prostitution is legal most anywhere here and everything is just fine and dandy!

Prostitutes are to a large extent a vulnerable and marginalized group in Europe too, but while I would not call things "fine and dandy", we have happily avoided making it into a crime (in most countries).

Or just look to Nevada, they don't seem to have a problem
with it either... I have no idea about Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the more general subject here, on making homosexual behaviour legal: The claim that this is a step on the road to legalize child abuse is cruelly absurd. Logically, it is a case of poisoning the well.

The mere fact that the Bible deals with homosexuality shows us that such behaviour has always existed. Whether you approve of it or not, it is within the range of human sexual activity. There is absolutely nothing that links it to to child abuse more than any other form of sexual behaviour. Indeed paedophiles come from all kinds of orientations.

As for the observation that some homosexuals are able to "change" and live like heterosexuals, anybody interested the least bit in facts will know that we are not looking a binary option, but at a continous scale. A proportion of the population are to some degree bisexual, and can choose to suppress part of their sexuality in order to comply with the culture they live in. Just like a sizable proportion of the (esp. male) population would be polygamous, if this was culturally acceptable.

Hans

---

Hi Hans,

I concur with your post lmost 100%. I DO find prostitution abominable myself, but would never get the idea to limit it for OTHERS WHO HAVE FREELY MADE THE DECISION TO ENGAGE IN IT. In a free country, everything that does not hurt an unconsenting party should be allowed, IMHO. That includes, beastiality, adult incest and ESPECIALLY prostitution.

As for case b) "lewd behavior and sex for no compensation" - this is EXACTLY what all my girlfriends have done with me :). It is the OPPOSITE of prostitution. Why it can be punished is beyond me.

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

The mere fact that the Bible deals with homosexuality shows us that such behaviour has always existed. Whether you approve of it or not, it is within the range of human sexual activity. There is absolutely nothing that links it to to child abuse more than any other form of sexual behaviour. Indeed paedophiles come from all kinds of orientations.

Depending on who you talk to, the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality per se, but rather defines where and how it may take place; and it's not a case that homosexuality comes in for special treatment, because the bible records prescribed cultural practices for a whole range of activities. It looks like the homophobic attitudes were added around the time of the King James version to simplify the bible and make it more "user-friendly".

MRC_Hans

30th June 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Depending on who you talk to, the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality per se, but rather defines where and how it may take place; and it's not a case that homosexuality comes in for special treatment, because the bible records prescribed cultural practices for a whole range of activities. It looks like the homophobic attitudes were added around the time of the King James version to simplify the bible and make it more "user-friendly". Yes. I should have said that the bible "mentions" homosexuality.

Hans

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Yes. I should have said that the bible "mentions" homosexuality.

Hans

Nope, you're right first time, but the homophobic aspect was a matter of later editorial revisions ;)

Regnad Kcin

30th June 2003, 08:37 PM

From the always entertaining and informative The Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh063003.shtml): IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS:

Conservative pundits were quite upset with the Texas sodomy verdict. In Texas, gays can engage in consensual sex without the fear of arrest! But did anyone notice the way this decision brought certain strange thoughts to some kooky-con minds? For all too many talk-show conservatives, a movie was playing—When Harry Met Lassie. To these pundits, the logic was obvious—if gays are allowed to get it on, bestiality will soon be cool too. George Will expressed the kooky thought best:

WILL: Once consent…supplants marriage as the important interest served by cloaking sexual activities as constitutional rights, by what principle is any consensual adult sexual conduct not a protected right? Bigamy? Polygamy? Prostitution? Incest? Even—if we assume animals can consent, or that their consent does not matter—bestiality?

According to Will, if we assume that animals can consent, then bestiality will be OK too! Of course, if we assume that pigs can fly, then pigs might try to run their own airline!