Supreme Court [Archive] - toonzone forums

EinBebop

06-26-2003, 04:16 PM

There's been far too few political/social debates in here as of late. :D

The Supreme Court has been the center of a lot of activity lately. Just today...

- The Supreme Court struck down a previous ruling giving states the right to regulate "deviant sex", saying that it is a violation of privacy rights.

- They also ruled that states can draw political boundries with racial considerations in mind, which, as O'Conner says, "should encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters".

- The dismissed a case brought forward by Nike about whether free speech protections extend to corporate speech.

- They overturned a death sentence conviction, saying that his lawyers had not adequately investigated his history as a victim of childhood abuse.

- Allowed a Ten Commandments plaque hanging in a courthouse could remain there for "historic preservation", stating that it was not necessarily an endorsement of religion.

And of course, the Court upheld Affirmative Action earlier this week, and refused to consider "Jane Roe"'s request to overturn her Roe v Wade victory last week.

Also... amidst rumours that at least one Supreme Court seat will be opening up soon, John Kerry says that he will filibuster any nominees who do not support abortion rights.

And of course, there's Dick Gephardt's recent comments: ""When [sic] I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

So much to discuss! Where to begin? I'll throw a question out there in relation to some of these cases: Is the Supreme Court overstepping its Constitutional bounds, or stretching interpretations to fit their own needs?

randomguy

06-26-2003, 06:57 PM

- The Supreme Court struck down a previous ruling giving states the right to regulate "deviant sex", saying that it is a violation of privacy rights.

I'm still "iffy" (though open-minded) on affirmative action, but I was happy to hear this one. I live in Texas, where anti-sodomy laws are still enforced. I've always found them ridiculous, and I'm glad that goverment time and money won't be wasted on such superfluous and ethically questionable expenditures.

Brainatra

06-26-2003, 08:30 PM

So much to discuss! Where to begin? I'll throw a question out there in relation to some of these cases: Is the Supreme Court overstepping its Constitutional bounds, or stretching interpretations to fit their own needs?

Well, in the striking down of gay sodomy laws, they reversed their own earlier (1980's) ruling on the issue...but overall, I say no (besides, they crossed that line already IMO, back in the 2000 elections... ;-) ). Either way, still glad to see today's IMO favorable ruling on this issue...

-B.

Lucky Bob

06-27-2003, 01:34 AM

Just as a side note, it was a lower court that refused to hear Roe. The fight will go on in a higher court.

Affirmative action: Bad idea. If we're trying to encourage a society in which race doesn't matter, why are we saying that it does? Just because someone has a different color of skin than I do, that means that he is entitled to more, or less, than I am, from a legal standpoint? Imagine if McDonalds started charging for their hamburgers based on skin tones, the public outcry that would occur! It's no different than what the Court is endorsing.

Texas sodomy law: Very wrong, and a very dangerous precedent on top of it all. Especially the way Justice Kennedy put it:

"The state cannot demean [the plaintiffs'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,"

Now, THAT'S scary, because it brings up the question of "Where does it end?" If a state has no business in "private sexual conduct" in this case, what about every other case? The Supreme Court has, with this precedent, effectively nullified every anti-bigamy, incest, and pedophile law in the country!

Scary stuff.

EinBebop

06-27-2003, 01:45 AM

Author George Will says it better than I can.

"`Unconstitutional' is not a synonym for ``unjust'' or ``unwise,'' and the Constitution is not a scythe that judges are free to wield to cut down all laws they would vote to repeal as legislators."

So set aside for a minute opinions on homosexuality:

This whole concept of a Constitutional "right to privacy" is a huge stretch at best. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is over matters of the Constitution, U.S. Law, and disputes between states. (Incidentally, I also think the Federal legislature has overstepped its boundries as far as what it can govern, unchallenged by the Supreme Court because it broadens their authority as well.)

And now, this radical definition of right to privacy opens a whole new can of worms... can I now club baby seals in the privacy of my own home? Where does this begin and end? In this case, they did say 'private sexual conduct'. Hooray! Prostitution is legal! And are pets consenting adults?

This would've gone away on its own. Many states have repealed these laws; the rest for the most part ignore them. The Supreme Court has done more harm then good here. Even for the gay community. It would be a far greater victory if gay rights were gained democratically, rather than through a Constitutionally questionable court decision that could just be overturned a few years from now. But perhaps they have a different perspective on that than I.

In fact, here's a quote from another who doesn't think it was much of a victory:

"The court based all of its decision on the right of privacy. It did not find a fundamental right for homosexuals to commit homosexual acts. We feared they would find that, and they did not. It's the same flimsy principle they used to decide abortion is constitutional." - Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family

William C. Maune

06-27-2003, 01:57 AM

Some clarifications:

- They also ruled that states can draw political boundries with racial considerations in mind, which, as O'Conner says, "should encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters".

Yes, but they also said race shouldn't be the only factor: " In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said lower courts reviewing redistricting cases should consider all factors and not focus solely on whether minorities can elect a minority candidate."

- Allowed a Ten Commandments plaque hanging in a courthouse could remain there for "historic preservation", stating that it was not necessarily an endorsement of religion.

This was a federal appeals court decision, not a Supreme Court decision.

BrendaBat

06-27-2003, 02:05 AM

And of course, the Court upheld Affirmative Action earlier this week
Ah, the Grantz vs Bollinger case. My Government class had to role-play this case as our final exam. I got an A :)
I don't agree with affirmative action because it supports the stereotype that all white people have it easy and all minorities need hand-outs in order to compete with the white race.
The University of Michigan said it used affirmative action to promote diversity in its school; but there are must ways to achieve that goal that don't discriminate against majority groups.

The Supreme Court struck down a previous ruling giving states the right to regulate "deviant sex", saying that it is a violation of privacy rights.
I can't believe that the courts still care about punishing people for consenual acts in their own home! Aren't there real criminals out there more diserving of police attention? And exactly how do the police get evidence to prove that "deviant sex" took place? :o
.....never mind. I don't wanna know!

This would've gone away on its own. Many states have repealed these laws; the rest for the most part ignore them. The Supreme Court has done more harm then good here. Even for the gay community. It would be a far greater victory if gay rights were gained democratically, rather than through a Constitutionally questionable court decision that could just be overturned a few years from now. But perhaps they have a different perspective on that than I.
This court decision may not be as signifigant as gaining gay rights democratically, but its a start. Having gay sex is no longer a crime and, hopefully, this will lead to legalizing gay marriage

LastSonofKrypton

06-27-2003, 02:25 PM

<snip>
And now, this radical definition of right to privacy opens a whole new can of worms... can I now club baby seals in the privacy of my own home? Where does this begin and end? In this case, they did say 'private sexual conduct'. Hooray! Prostitution is legal! And are pets consenting adults?

No, you can't club baby seals in the privacy of your own home. That's cruelty to animals and has nothing to do with what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of the home. As far as prostitution goes, if it's between consenting adults, I hope it is made legal either legislatively or by precedent from this ruling. By the way, in case you're curious, pets are not capable of giving consent, so hands off! :p

Maybe opening a can of worms is exactly what is needed right now. Maybe this is what it will take to finally get these self-appointed arbiters of morality out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Brainatra

06-27-2003, 03:04 PM

>>And now, this radical definition of right to privacy opens a whole new can of worms... can I now club baby seals in the privacy of my own home? Where does this begin and end? In this case, they did say 'private sexual conduct'. Hooray! Prostitution is legal! And are pets consenting adults?

Well, besides the fact that prostitution *is* legal in Nevada (and heavily regulated) and has been for decades (without said state falling into the abyss or anything), and ignoring your silly "pets"/"baby seals" comments, the idea behind the court ruling is that consensual sex between any consenting (and unrelated) adults isn't the government's business---whether gay or straight (O'Connor based her vote IIRC on the fact that said sodomy laws didn't include straights). That's all.

>>This would've gone away on its own.

Well, from the fact that the two plaintiffs took Texas all the way to the highest court in the land, possibly not anytime soon...

>>Many states have repealed these laws; the rest for the most part ignore them.

True...but they were still on the books, just waiting to be used---as it was in Texas for the two plaintiffs in this case. In their case, a disgruntled neighbor with a grudge against the two apparently used it to embarrass/humiliate them (via calling the cops)...

>>The Supreme Court has done more harm then good here. Even for the gay community. It would be a far greater victory if gay rights were gained democratically, rather than through a Constitutionally questionable court decision that could just be overturned a few years from now. But perhaps they have a different perspective on that than I.

Well, this gay person (and from various news reports of gays celebrating the decision across the country, others as well) disagrees that "more harm than good was done here"----I *like* knowing I can have sex without laws used by homophobic busybodies being used against me... :-)

Besides, the same could've been said about "Brown vs. the Board of Education" (which overturned segregated schools)---we *could've* waited until the high-minded congressman of the fifties (like Strom Thurmond) voted to overturn it, couldn't we?

>>In fact, here's a quote from another who doesn't think it was much of a victory:

>>"The court based all of its decision on the right of privacy. It did not find a fundamental right for homosexuals to commit homosexual acts. We feared they would find that, and they did not. It's the same flimsy principle they used to decide abortion is constitutional." - Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family

Uh, by overturning sodomy laws, it *did* guarantee the right for gays to have sex without fear of arrest, just like straight couples... let alone "homosexual acts" (kissing? voting? Buying a late-model sedan??)...

-B.

wonderfly

06-27-2003, 03:30 PM

Here's what Bill Orielly had to say about it last night. Whoever runs his website, they made some mistakes in the text, which I had to correct, (to the best of my ability) but this is basically his thoughts on the subject.

The Supreme Court says 'No' to the Sex Police
Friday, June 27, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly

"Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

The Supreme Court says no to the sex police. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

As we predicted last December, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, six this three, basically saying Americans have a right to privacy and the law has no business invading a person's bedroom.

A few weeks ago, a billoreilly.com poll overwhelmingly showed that Americans don't want a sex police. Now we posted this question on billoreilly.com. Was the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Texas sodomy law correct? Yes or no?

Now I believe the law was struck down because the Fourth Amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not have sexual activity monitored. And that's what the court decided today.

In dissent, Clarence Thomas actually said he finds no general right of privacy in the Constitution. Wow. Justice Scalia also dissented, but based his arguments on history and states rights. Said Scalia, "sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 states when they ratified the Bill of Rights." Scalia when on to opine, "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. I would no more require a state to criminalize homosexual acts than I would forbid it to do so."

But it is not the homosexual act that's in play. If you do any sexual act in public, you're breaking the law. It is the right of citizens to engage in personal behavior in private that the court was considering.

Scalia is right that early on in America, many perceived sins were turned into laws by the States. That's why prostitution is illegal. But the Constitution clearly states that the violation of privacy that the Texas sodomy law entails, (that is arresting consenting adults in a private residence for having sex), is not allowed.

So then, why do we need the sex police anyway? We need to police the borders, not Liberace. But, and here comes the no spin, this ruling should not give militant gays the right to flaunt their alternative lifestyle in the faces of American children.

Most American homosexuals are responsible, good people, but as with any group, the fanatics flaunt their lifestyle, demanding universal approval. And that's not going to happen. Americans have a perfect right to disapprove of homosexuality and consider it immoral. That is freedom of thought and in some cases, religion.

Talking Points continues to advise all Americans to SHUT UP about your sexual preference. It's nobody's business. And now the Supreme Court agrees.

And that's The Memo."

Lucky Bob

06-27-2003, 03:57 PM

First off, everyone seems to assume that the sodomy laws allowed any policeman to break into a house and start arresting homosexuals on a whim. They did not.

The plaintiffs in this case were reported by a neighbor for creating a disturbance. In the words of the neighbor, it sounded like the man next door was "going crazy". When police came and found the two engaged in the act, they had to be arrested. If they had come in and found them with drugs, would it have not been right for the police to have arrested them?

Nobody was put under any illegal search, the police just had to perform their duty when it was presented to them. If any other illegal activity was being performed when they walked in, should the police have looked the other way?

And the question I posed earlier has not been answered. If we want to stop legislating sexual behavior entirely, then why not just let the bigamists, pedophiles, and those who engage in incest go? After all, it's their preference! Who says that "consenting adults" should be the only ones protected, while every other group should be punished? Isn't that being a "[insert alternative sexual orientation here]-phobic"?

As to the privacy issue, if someone wants to do illegal things in the privacy of their own homes, I say let them! But they should accept the consequences if they are caught. That's not to say that the police should go around checking everyone's home on a routine basis, but they should investigate using due process of the law if there is evidence. If homosexual behavior is deemed illegal, then it is no exception. The "home" should not be a safe haven for illegal acts of any kind.

Brainatra

06-27-2003, 04:51 PM

>>And the question I posed earlier has not been answered. If we want to stop legislating sexual behavior entirely, then why not just let the bigamists, pedophiles, and those who engage in incest go? After all, it's their preference! Who says that "consenting adults" should be the only ones protected, while every other group should be punished? Isn't that being a "[insert alternative sexual orientation here]-phobic"?

...which assumes that homosexuality is somehow on the same level as child-molestors, which (as most people realize) isn't the case.

>>
As to the privacy issue, if someone wants to do illegal things in the privacy of their own homes, I say let them! But they should accept the consequences if they are caught. That's not to say that the police should go around checking everyone's home on a routine basis, but they should investigate using due process of the law if there is evidence. If homosexual behavior is deemed illegal, then it is no exception. The "home" should not be a safe haven for illegal acts of any kind.
<<

Still unconvinced that my right to have sex with someone of the same gender should be rendered subject to my being arrested by the cops...and you've not offered any reason why my having the possibility of being subject to doing an overnight stretch in the county clink for doing so should exist (besides the strawman argument of "it'll be <insert groups here> who'll be legalized next!")...

-B.

Steve Jester

06-27-2003, 05:30 PM

Ok, the Supreme Court made a ruling making sodomy legal and the residents of ToonZone are in uproar.

Gee, never thought I'd see the day. :D

Personaly, being bisexual myself, I have to agree with Brainatra. If the court wants to defend my right to my privacy when I seek out a relationship with another guy, more power to them. Even if they outlawed it entirly I would still do it because I would believe, in that case, that the ruling was wrong. You may ask, if I was caught would I try to deny it? No. Would I try to get out of it? No. There is a lesson to be learned from Gahndhi and MLK, passive resistance of unjust laws. The couple from Texas peacefully chalenged an unjust law and won. I see no problem in this. I would hope that people here would learn that the "Nine Wise Souls in Washington"* know excatly what they are doing.

*Quote taken from "Law and Order"

okendri

06-27-2003, 05:35 PM

Let me take a swing at a couple of those questions.
Pedophilia involves someone that can't consent to sex.
Bigamy doesn't just involve sex, since it is the act of marrying more than 2 people which involves the state. The States have a right to define what marriage is. If it was just multiple couples having sex in their house the state couldn't do anything. What if having sex outside of the bedroom was deemed illegal?

Brainatra

06-27-2003, 06:34 PM

>>Ok, the Supreme Court made a ruling making sodomy legal and the residents of ToonZone are in uproar.

Gee, never thought I'd see the day. :D

Heh...

>>
Personaly, being bisexual myself, I have to agree with Brainatra. If the court wants to defend my right to my privacy when I seek out a relationship with another guy, more power to them. Even if they outlawed it entirly I would still do it because I would believe, in that case, that the ruling was wrong. You may ask, if I was caught would I try to deny it? No. Would I try to get out of it? No. There is a lesson to be learned from Gahndhi and MLK, passive resistance of unjust laws. The couple from Texas peacefully chalenged an unjust law and won. I see no problem in this. I would hope that people here would learn that the "Nine Wise Souls in Washington"* know excatly what they are doing.

*Quote taken from "Law and Order"<<

Actually, I still have various beefs with about half of those "Nine Wise Souls" over a few rulings in the past (*cough*2000elections*cough*), but yeah, I agree with what you say...

Also nice to see I'm not the only non-straight person on Toonzone...

-B.

Nightflower

06-27-2003, 08:23 PM

>>
Also nice to see I'm not the only non-straight person on Toonzone...

-B.
You might want to get to know Bud 'n' Lou then. :)

EinBebop

06-27-2003, 11:30 PM

self-appointed arbiters of moralityWhen I scanned through looking for unread posts, I thought you were referring to the Supreme Court. :p

EinBebop

06-28-2003, 12:15 AM

Points to Braintara for the Brown vs Board of Education reference... you make an excellent point. And now I'm curious to see if that Supreme Court was acting under authority as questionable as this one. But I was disturbed by the cheapshot at Strom Thurmand, (sp?), especially so close to his death. So does this mean that if I choose to reject my current stand on homosexuality tomorrow, that I'll never be seen as a good person in your eyes?

Also, is anyone willing to defend the Supreme Court against my accusation that they are acting outside of their Constitutional bounds, or is this a "two wrongs make a right" case?

And back to whole privacy issue... Everyone seems to agree that bestiality is immoral. Child molestation is immoral. Prostitution... some might debate that. Operating a drug lab (hey! it's for my own personal use!)... okay, no. But it'll come up. Homosexual sex... RED LIGHT! RED LIGHT! I guarantee every lawyer dealing with a crime that took place in a home is analyzing this home privacy decision to see if they can twist it to fit their case.

What right do the states have to make is if something is immoral? A Constitutional one! The states have the right to run themselves as they see fit, as long as they don't violate the Constitution; who consented with who is irrelevant. And to steal again what George Will said: A bad law is not an Unconstitutional law.

Lucky Bob

06-28-2003, 01:09 AM

...which assumes that homosexuality is somehow on the same level as child-molestors, which (as most people realize) isn't the case.

How is it not? If sexual behavior in general is protected, why shouldn't we protect these other acts? Using this legal argument, what's the difference?

Still unconvinced that my right to have sex with someone of the same gender should be rendered subject to my being arrested by the cops...and you've not offered any reason why my having the possibility of being subject to doing an overnight stretch in the county clink for doing so should exist (besides the strawman argument of "it'll be <insert groups here> who'll be legalized next!")...

-B.

Tell me why all the groups I have mentioned should be punished, and that's pretty much my reasoning.

Let me take a swing at a couple of those questions. Pedophilia involves someone that can't consent to sex

Not in all cases. We won't go into this too far, but there's no evidence that all of the kids are unconsenting.

Bigamy doesn't just involve sex, since it is the act of marrying more than 2 people which involves the state. The States have a right to define what marriage is. If it was just multiple couples having sex in their house the state couldn't do anything. What if having sex outside of the bedroom was deemed illegal?

That's irrelavant, since all of the laws we have discussed have to do with who engages in such practices. Where is an entirely different matter. (Although, try being lewd in a public place and see if you're not thrown in the slammer.)

okendri

06-28-2003, 01:24 AM

Lucky Bob

06-28-2003, 03:04 AM

Far more don't understand what they are doing and they should be protected. Its too hard to find out who is really consenting and not so the states just set a minimum age.

Ok I see your point on that one. What about the laws that were on the books concerning Interracial marriages?

Easy! Race is not a voluntary thing. You can't control what race you are. (Unless you're Michael Jackson, and even then...:D) If you discriminate against someone because of an unchangable part of their being, then that is hardly just.

However, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like are matters of will. People choose to follow such lifestyles.

Now, many argue that homosexuals were just "born that way". If so, then why not people with stranger orientations? And how do they explain the many homosexuals that have "gone straight?" Thus, we can conclude that the argument that homosexuals "can't help it" is, at best, a matter of opinion.

Since it is quite apparent that sexual acts are a matter of choice, it clears the air on the legal aspect. Virtually all laws have to do with choice. I can choose to drive over the speed limit, but the most I'll get for my efforts is a speeding ticket. I can choose to use drugs, but I'll get arrested. I can choose to shoplift, but I'll be punished.

okendri

06-28-2003, 03:12 AM

You know you are going to be taken to task on will and homosexuality. I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or not. I'll just go with that it isn't since I haven't seen any proof either way. To me I don't think somebody can just up and decide they are gay. Also you can choose whether or not to engage in interracial relationships.

Bud 'n Lou

06-28-2003, 04:58 AM

You might want to get to know Bud 'n' Lou then. :)
*waves* Hello. :0)
Brainatra, for some reason, I always assumed you were straight. I was always very impressed with you. I was all, "He's so open-minded for a straight male. [Margaret Cho] Is he a unicorn? [/MC]" Which is not to say that you don't still rock. :0) Which is also not to say straight men can't be open-minded, but I've never seen one quite as open as I thought you were. Too good to be true. :0P
Anyway, the ruling says that "private sexual conduct" cannot be deemed a crime because they didn't have the guts to specific, and say that they really meant "gay sex," lest they incur the wrath of certain groups. I guess they thought the vagueness would cause a less volatile reaction.
And now, I shall list the differences between gay sex, and Lucky Bob's Big List O' Depraved Sex Acts:

Pedophilia - I always thought that when people jumped to the arguement that homosexuality = pedophilia, incest, etc., it seemed like they were really grasping at straws. Speaking of which:
Not in all cases. We won't go into this too far, but there's no evidence that all of the kids are unconsenting.
Ouch. Sex with children is already more or less outlawed by way of statutory rape laws. Whether or not some of those children involved say they are "willing," the law says that they are incapable of giving their consent until they reach a certain age.
Bigamy/Polygamy - As someone else mentioned, bigamy and polygamy are not sexual acts at all.
Prostitution - Personally, I don't have a problem with prostitution, but I think the objection to it is that many people think it's immoral to exhange money for sex acts. They also feel that it is unsafe for both parties, with the threat of disease and violence.
Incest - The objection to incest is that if they get with the baby-making, they can produce some seriously damaged off-spring. Also, incestuous relationships are often psychologically damaging for the parties involved. Other than those things, I can't think of any other logical arguements against incest, so, although icky, I don't have a problem with it, as long as those above mentioned circumstances don't apply.
Bestiality - If children are incapable of giving their consent, animals certainly aren't. Their brains don't function on a level equal to humans, and they don't have the capacity for complex decision making. To say that they can make the decision, because they respond positively to the sexual contact is ignorant, taking advantage, cruel and yucky, among other things. I can't believe I even have to explain this.

There, I think I covered everything. The reason I said earlier that it seems like people are grasping at straws when they make these comparisons is because, if you'll note the year, it's 2003. This supreme court ruling is far from the first legal victory for gay rights. So where are these radical fringe groups that everyone keeps warning will emerge, demanding their rights to screw sheep? Surely they would have made their presence known by now. Where's the Hierarcy of Inbred Copulating Kin, campaigning for their sexual freedom? Oh right, they're nowhere. Because they don't exist, and probably never will. And if they do exist, they're obviously not much of a political force, since no one has ever heard of them. The bottom line is that I don't think the people who say that homosexuality is the equivilant of the sex acts listed above are really concerned that having sex with barnyard animals will one day be protected by law, because I think most reasonable people will realize that that will just never happen. They jump to that extreme--grasping at straws, out of a dislike of homosexuality. Only it is often masked as a genuine concern that it will lead to pedophilia being legalized. IMHO.

EinBebop

06-28-2003, 11:35 AM

So where are these radical fringe groups that everyone keeps warning will emerge, demanding their rights to screw sheep? Surely they would have made their presence known by now. Where's the Hierarcy of Inbred Copulating Kin, campaigning for their sexual freedom? Oh right, they're nowhere. Because they don't exist, and probably never will. And if they do exist, they're obviously not much of a political force, since no one has ever heard of them. The bottom line is that I don't think the people who say that homosexuality is the equivilant of the sex acts listed above are really concerned that having sex with barnyard animals will one day be protected by law, because I think most reasonable people will realize that that will just never happen. B][/COLOR][/FONT]I notice you didn't mention pedophilia; probably because NAMBLA has been out making a name for itself lately.

And if there's a boy-love organization, I'm sure that there's a beastiality (or as its practicers apparently call it, zoophilia) group as well, but I didn't have the stomach to search out the websites. I can imagine the direction they'll take: they'll argue that even if animals are capable of psychological or emotional pain, that it will not be incurred on animals since they are only interested in giving animals pleasure, and that they are not limited by the same emotional hang-ups as humans.

Incest by its very nature is limited by a small choice of partners. I didn't find an organized incest group, but I didn't have to look very far to find a website debating incest. The supporters claimed that it was outlawed because of sexual abuse, and that the whole genetics thing is overstated. I did run across another site where an incest couple claim they would never have kids, and question whether the government has the right to tell them they're not capable of safe incest sex.

They're not much of a political force now, because people think they're kooks. NAMBLA never would've gotten any airtime outside of Ricki Lake five years ago. All of these groups see nothing wrong with what they do, and see themselves victims of a close-minded society. And as the definition of sexual morality becomes smaller and smaller, what they do seems less questionable. I guarantee you that all of these groups saw the Supreme Court ruling as a step forward in their own races for acceptance.

Some reasonable people don't know what to think anymore. The homosexual community has been unsuccessful getting laws passed, so they're turning to the courts instead. In other words, the courts are apparently ruling against the majority of the people, and in this case, the basis on which they're doing it is very questionable. Where does it end? You have to grasp that to many people, homosexuality is not far removed from these other sexual acts.

I don't think there'll be a huge fight against incest, since its so limited. It's just a lawyer taking up a cause and dragging it to the Supreme Court. Beastiality will have a bigger challenge because they're competing with another largely liberal group: the animal rights activists. As far as pedophilia goes, well, I definitely think its a lot farther off (about 20 years), but I think the age of consent will eventually drop as society encourages youth to be more sexual, given that so many people think young people should be free to go make mistakes and decide right/wrong on their own.

Off-topic thought: If I wanted a prostitute, could I slip around the law by taking a camera with me and asking someone to star in my film? Or perhaps prostitutes could just start carrying cameras and calling themselves "actresses-for-hire"?

Bud 'n Lou

06-28-2003, 01:09 PM

I notice you didn't mention pedophilia; probably because NAMBLA has been out making a name for itself lately.

Yeah, I'm a sneaky one alright. Or not. I didn't even know what NAMBLA was until you mentioned it.

And if there's a boy-love organization, I'm sure that there's a beastiality (or as its practicers apparently call it, zoophilia) group as well, but I didn't have the stomach to search out the websites. I can imagine the direction they'll take: they'll argue that even if animals are capable of psychological or emotional pain, that it will not be incurred on animals since they are only interested in giving animals pleasure, and that they are not limited by the same emotional hang-ups as humans.

Maybe they'll do that. And then they'll be laughed at.

Incest by its very nature is limited by a small choice of partners. I didn't find an organized incest group, but I didn't have to look very far to find a website debating incest. The supporters claimed that it was outlawed because of sexual abuse, and that the whole genetics thing is overstated. I did run across another site where an incest couple claim they would never have kids, and question whether the government has the right to tell them they're not capable of safe incest sex.

Incest does offer a limited choice of partners, but that doesn't really matter. If there were enough of them seeking political power, they would have formed some kind of coalition by now. As I said in my last post though, I concede that such an organization might exist. However, they're obviously not well known if they do, and even if they were, they'd be dismissed as sickos. Anyway, the incest proponents you cited make some good points. I'm of the belief that if no one is getting hurt, including those involved, then there's really nothing wrong with it (and even then, it depends on just how bad it is for you, and if you're willing as an individual to accept those consequences, blahblahblahlongwindedcakes). I consider homosexuality to be one such thing, and I think a lot of people would agree with me. I would have to read more about incest before I decided whether or not it fell into this category too (but to be honest, I doubt I WILL read more about it, cause I think it's icky, and I'm lazy). Those other things, such as bestiality and pedophilia? Definately don't fall into that category. I don't think you give the public enough credit, because I'm sure most people would agree, now and in the future, that bestiality and pedophilia are harmful.

They're not much of a political force now, because people think they're kooks. NAMBLA never would've gotten any airtime outside of Ricki Lake five years ago. All of these groups see nothing wrong with what they do, and see themselves victims of a close-minded society. And as the definition of sexual morality becomes smaller and smaller, what they do seems less questionable. I guarantee you that all of these groups saw the Supreme Court ruling as a step forward in their own races for acceptance.

I'm sure they do. And they're sadly mistaken. Again, to me, and to a great many others, it boils down to whether or not the parties involved are hurting anyone by doing what they're doing. Pedophiles are taking advantage of kids who aren't mature enough yet to make sound decisions. Healthy heterosexual and homosexual relationships have in common the fact that none of the parties involved are being hurt, psychologically, physically, or otherwise. All partners are equal in those relationships. This is not true for pedophiles and other groups. Good luck to them if they decide they want to prove otherwise, because they'll convince absolutely no one.

Some reasonable people don't know what to think anymore. The homosexual community has been unsuccessful getting laws passed, so they're turning to the courts instead. In other words, the courts are apparently ruling against the majority of the people, and in this case, the basis on which they're doing it is very questionable. Where does it end? You have to grasp that to many people, homosexuality is not far removed from these other sexual acts.

The majority of the people, or the majority of the voters? Opponents of the gay rights movement are very vocal. Unfortunately, a lot of gay people are jaded and apathetic, and not all that politically active. And the majority of straight people who don't have a problem with homosexuality probably don't care quite enough about it to go out and help out the cause. I'm not trying to say that the opponents are a small faction, but I don't think they're as numerous as some might think, at least on the gay sex issue (more people are opposed to marriage rights and such than sex rights, but we won't get into the marriage thing). Plus, I only think part of the Supreme Court ruling is fishy (the vagueness about the kind of sexual conduct they were referring to). Protection of the right to privacy of those not hurting anyone sounds like a valid ruling to me. There's a lot of people I disagree with too, but in the cases where they're not hurting anyone, I just accept that they have the right to do what they do, and excercise my right to disagree with them. I don't know why more people can't be satisfied to live this way, rather than try to block out everything they don't like. Also, I do grasp that many people group homosexuality with those other sexual acts. I'm not new to this debate. :0P

I don't think there'll be a huge fight against incest, since its so limited. It's just a lawyer taking up a cause and dragging it to the Supreme Court. Beastiality will have a bigger challenge because they're competing with another largely liberal group: the animal rights activists. As far as pedophilia goes, well, I definitely think its a lot farther off (about 20 years), but I think the age of consent will eventually drop as society encourages youth to be more sexual, given that so many people think young people should be free to go make mistakes and decide right/wrong on their own.

I'm sorry, but I don't realistically see any of this actually happening, and certainly don't see it going very far if it does. Again, I don't think you give people enough credit. I'm pretty sure that more people than you think have the ability to reason that gay sex doesn't hurt anyone, while those other forms of sex do. Maybe I'm just being naively optimistic though.

Off-topic thought: If I wanted a prostitute, could I slip around the law by taking a camera with me and asking someone to star in my film? Or perhaps prostitutes could just start carrying cameras and calling themselves "actresses-for-hire"?

Hey, that's actually a pretty good idea. I like it.

Psilon

06-28-2003, 01:26 PM

Easy! Race is not a voluntary thing. You can't control what race you are. (Unless you're Michael Jackson, and even then...:D) If you discriminate against someone because of an unchangable part of their being, then that is hardly just.

However, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like are matters of will. People choose to follow such lifestyles.

Now, many argue that homosexuals were just "born that way". If so, then why not people with stranger orientations? And how do they explain the many homosexuals that have "gone straight?" Thus, we can conclude that the argument that homosexuals "can't help it" is, at best, a matter of opinion.

Since it is quite apparent that sexual acts are a matter of choice, it clears the air on the legal aspect. Virtually all laws have to do with choice. I can choose to drive over the speed limit, but the most I'll get for my efforts is a speeding ticket. I can choose to use drugs, but I'll get arrested. I can choose to shoplift, but I'll be punished.

Wasn't this homosexual thing talked about a few threads ago?
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=77560

All sexual behaviours are learned.
Ok, so what?

How is heterosexuality more moral than homosexuality?

On a somewhat related note:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=5cdf858c5ea1eda4&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1056751810713&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Gay Marriage going to be legalized in Canada.

Lucky Bob

06-28-2003, 02:11 PM

B&L, with all due respect, you're looking at this pretty shallow here. You seem to be saying that simply because this decision makes homosexual acts legal, that it's a good decision. However, there's a lot more to this case than homosexuality.

The exact words used by Justice Kennedy in expressing the opinion of the court were: "private sexual conduct". I know that in your view, that means "homosexual acts". However, when the court reviews past cases for precedent, they read "private sexual conduct". That's pretty all-encompassing.

To that end, what the court has done is declared all laws limiting sexual activity "unconstitutional". This is a very serious matter. The opinion of the Supreme Court is just as good as the Constitution itself, since they are the ones interpreting it! The only ways this can be revised are:

1: Congress passes a constitutional amendment.
2: The Supreme Court reverses this decision in a later case.

Both scenarios are highly unlikely given the present conditions.

So, to put it all in perspective, all it would take is a convicted pedophile to appeal to the Supreme Court, and have all laws against such acts officially declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have to, since legal precedent demands it. Either that, or it would mean repealing this decision.

So, that's my main reason for opposing this decision. If it were limited to just consenting adults of all kind, I'd be a lot less worried. But this ruling passed first base and effectively declared all sexual conduct legal.

Now, the argument that "Nobody's going to try anything dumb. As long as the decision gets done what I like, I'm happy" is quite a dangerous one. We should care that such a thing has happened. Simply because the "others" are not as good as lobbying as the homosexuals, doesn't mean that this decision won't give them new life. Where were the homosexual lobbyists...say...sixty years ago? Just because it's not happening now doesn't mean it won't.

(BTW, the ACLU has defended NAMBLA in at least one case, so the idea is not too far-fetched.)

Oh, and Psilon, this is about law. If you want to discuss morality, go bring that thread up from the grave. But the discussion here is, can the states legislate sexual acts? According to the rules now, they can't. And, as you can see, that brings a lot of potential problems to the mix...

EinBebop

06-28-2003, 02:16 PM

The majority of the people, or the majority of the voters? Opponents of the gay rights movement are very vocal. Unfortunately, a lot of gay people are jaded and apathetic, and not all that politically active.Now that brings up a very interesting social issue: politicial factions that are underrepresented because they choose not to vote. I don't recall which proposition it was (and it would probably just cloud the issue if I did), but one passed here in California a few years ago, and it immediately ended up in court being fought by civil attornies. Major voter disillusionment here in CA; lots of cries questioning whether or not our votes mean anything. I've got all kinds of theories I'd love to get input on, but that would take this thread way off track. The point that I'm trying to make is that having the courts passing laws to correct "voter mistakes" only adds to the problem and has the potential to destroy any sense of democracy in this country.

At any rate, we seem to be stalemated at a difference of opinion on where this will lead; only time will tell. I do hope that you are right.

Again, I don't think you give people enough credit.I give the people plenty of credit. I don't think a laws like these would ever pass. The people I don't give enough credit to are the civil liberties lawyers and the standing Supreme Court.

But then, I suppose George W. can just follow Gephardt's recommendation and start issuing executive orders. :p

Bud 'n Lou

06-28-2003, 02:34 PM

BrendaBat

06-29-2003, 05:25 PM

Origionally posted by EinBebop
NAMBLA never would've gotten any airtime outside of Ricki Lake five years ago. All of these groups see nothing wrong with what they do, and see themselves victims of a close-minded society. And as the definition of sexual morality becomes smaller and smaller, what they do seems less questionable. I guarantee you that all of these groups saw the Supreme Court ruling as a step forward in their own races for acceptance.
I think its unfair to compare homosexuals with a group who wants the legal right to rape little boys.

Originally posted by Lucky Bob
And the question I posed earlier has not been answered. If we want to stop legislating sexual behavior entirely, then why not just let the bigamists, pedophiles, and those who engage in incest go? After all, it's their preference! Who says that "consenting adults" should be the only ones protected, while every other group should be punished? Isn't that being a "[insert alternative sexual orientation here]-phobic"?
The point is that the gay men were not hurting anyone by being gay. Children aren’t mature enough to understand or consent to sex and animals certainly can’t give consent. Homosexuals really don't deserve to be compared to pedophiles because pedophiles actually HURT PEOPLE!

Oy vey! Whenever I bring up the subject of gay rights and/or gay marriage some moron always shouts “If gays are allowed to get married, it will lead to people marrying animals, their cars, apples, etc…..” :rolleyes: It actually reminds me of a Kix commercial I saw recently where a little boy says "I love Kix" and a little girl keeps asking him "then why don't you marry it?" :p

Brainatra

06-29-2003, 05:31 PM

>>*waves* Hello. :0)

Hey there...

>>
Brainatra, for some reason, I always assumed you were straight. I was always very impressed with you. I was all, "He's so open-minded for a straight male. [Margaret Cho] Is he a unicorn? [/MC]" Which is not to say that you don't still rock. :0) Which is also not to say straight men can't be open-minded, but I've never seen one quite as open as I thought you were. Too good to be true. :0P<<

Well, had considered for awhile now whether/when to say something (admist the various "which girl do you think I should take to the prom?"/"it's the who's-the-best-looking-babe poll"/"I hate <xxx>, it's so gay" posts ;-) ). But decided I didn't have much to lose, and figured *someone* non-heterosexual probably should say something in response to the "gays are wrong" crowd, so here I am. And yes, people, I'm still the same guy who memorizes worthless pre-Crisis DC Comics trivia and wrote a fanfic story with Superboy meeting Pinky and the Brain... :-)

>>
Easy! Race is not a voluntary thing. You can't control what race you are. (Unless you're Michael Jackson, and even then...) If you discriminate against someone because of an unchangable part of their being, then that is hardly just.

However, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like are matters of will. People choose to follow such lifestyles.
<<

Actually, various civil rights/anti discrimination legislation (not to mention the Constitution) also protects the right of religious individuals...and which religion to practice (not to mention not practicing any religion at all) is certainly a choice...

And you're still trying to insist on placing homosexuality, something that I don't actively recall "choosing" when I suspected I liked guys back in high school (or being "recruited" or "influenced" by anyone to think guys as being the bee's knees), on the same basis as bestiality/pedophilia/etc., when there's no basis for such a comparison...

>>
Now, many argue that homosexuals were just "born that way". If so, then why not people with stranger orientations? And how do they explain the many homosexuals that have "gone straight?" Thus, we can conclude that the argument that homosexuals "can't help it" is, at best, a matter of opinion.
<<

While I (and the gays supposedly having "gone straight") can choose whether to go out on dates with guys or not, it doesn't change the fact that even though I'm single and not dating now, I still would much rather go out with a guy over a woman. Plus, there's various reports on those who used to go through "ex-gay" programs, only to renounce them as being harmful and not working (which they don't), along with various psychiatric groups that criticize such programs. Then there's the leader of one of those programs who was caught hanging out in a D.C. gay bar, but I digress...

>>Since it is quite apparent that sexual acts are a matter of choice, it clears the air on the legal aspect. Virtually all laws have to do with choice. I can choose to drive over the speed limit, but the most I'll get for my efforts is a speeding ticket. I can choose to use drugs, but I'll get arrested. I can choose to shoplift, but I'll be punished.<<

I'll agree that sexuality is fluid, and not as rigid as those in the "Homosexual agenda" (which I never got forwarded a copy of ;-)) camp would insist... but all in all, the Supreme Court (to go back on topic) ruled that there's no societal or logical benefit for having laws that punish someone for having sex with someone of the same gender, not to mention being unfairly discriminatory against those who do so (and as the majority more or less noted, "because I think it's icky" isn't enough of a reason to justify such laws, either). How *does* society benefit by throwing someone like me in the clink over having sex with another consensual adult male (especially since, unlike shoplifting, speeding, bestiality, pedophelia, etc., there's no harm being done to someone else or to the other person)?

-B.

Chris Wood

06-29-2003, 07:20 PM

[Brainatra]And you're still trying to insist on placing homosexuality, something that I don't actively recall "choosing" when I suspected I liked guys back in high school (or being "recruited" or "influenced" by anyone to think guys as being the bee's knees), on the same basis as bestiality/pedophilia/etc., when there's no basis for such a comparison...

Well, except that if we accept one sort of alternative sexual preference, then it's hard to say all others are illegitimate. Different strokes for different folks, as it were. For some it may be other guys, for some it may be......sheep? There are any number of possibilities.

How *does* society benefit by throwing someone like me in the clink over having sex with another consensual adult male (especially since, unlike shoplifting, speeding, bestiality, pedophelia, etc., there's no harm being done to someone else or to the other person)?

I don't know what the most recent statistics are, but past figures seem to indicate a higher incidence of AIDs in the homosexual population, so maybe the act of gay sex is putting one's partner unduly at risk.

Still, whatever floats your boat is cool I guess, as long as no one gets hurt.

EinBebop

06-29-2003, 10:36 PM

I think its unfair to compare homosexuals with a group who wants the legal right to rape little boys.Regardless, those groups will be making the comparison.

Lucky Bob

06-30-2003, 12:30 AM

Very simple, Brainatria. For all of the reasons you think that the "other" orientations are detrimental to society, there are arguments to counter those. And the law (allegedly) can't play favorites, it has to hear each case objectively. The ruling here was that the courts can't regulate "private sexual conduct." Even Bud & Lou recognizes the possible implications of that. Like Ein said, the other guys are going to argue that they have the same grounds as homosexuals. Legally, they do. After all, what has the homosexual community been saying all along? Something about "you can't legislate morality?" ;)

Bud 'n Lou

06-30-2003, 02:42 AM

Well, had considered for awhile now whether/when to say something (admist the various "which girl do you think I should take to the prom?"/"it's the who's-the-best-looking-babe poll"/"I hate <xxx>, it's so gay" posts ;-) ).
Yeah, I pretty much gave up on replying to the "it's so gay" posts. Then again, in all fairness, I haven't seen that much of them lately.
I don't know what the most recent statistics are, but past figures seem to indicate a higher incidence of AIDs in the homosexual population, so maybe the act of gay sex is putting one's partner unduly at risk.
That's unsafe sex, not gay sex. I guarantee that if most women were as easy as most men are, infection rates between heterosexual and homosexual people would be more balanced.
Very simple, Brainatria. For all of the reasons you think that the "other" orientations are detrimental to society, there are arguments to counter those. And the law (allegedly) can't play favorites, it has to hear each case objectively.
Exactly. And I welcome that. That way, when they hear cases about pedophilia and bestiality, they can rule that, unlike gay sex, those sex acts have victims.
The ruling here was that the courts can't regulate "private sexual conduct." Even Bud & Lou recognizes the possible implications of that. Like Ein said, the other guys are going to argue that they have the same grounds as homosexuals.
Yes, even simple-minded ME can understand that. *rolls eyes* I also understand that even if they do use this arguement, they'll be shot down, because any reasonable, non-biased person can realize that, again, THOSE sex acts are harmful to the people/animals involved. And if MY simple mind can come up with that reasoning, I'm sure lawmakers will too.

So what do you think, Brainatra? Did I do a good job of promoting the agenda, or are you going to report me back at HQ?

EinBebop

06-30-2003, 03:13 AM

:Even Bud & Lou recognizes the possible implications of that.
:Yes, even simple-minded ME can understand that.
Whoaa.... let's not let this spiral out of control. I took that to be making reference to an agreement on one point of argument, despite that the two of you take differing positions on the issue at hand. I saw no reference, direct or implied, to intelligence at all.

Possible revision: Though Bud&Lou and I stand in opposition on the issue of the Supreme Court decision, even Bud & Lou recognizes the possible implications of that.

Bud 'n Lou

06-30-2003, 03:51 AM

Whoaa.... let's not let this spiral out of control. I took that to be making reference to an agreement on one point of argument, despite that the two of you take differing positions on the issue at hand. I saw no reference, direct or implied, to intelligence at all.

Possible revision: Though Bud&Lou and I stand in opposition on the issue of the Supreme Court decision, even Bud & Lou recognizes the possible implications of that.
I think it's far from spiraling out of control. Lucky Bob's statement was not the first in which I felt my intelligence was being called into question in this thread, so I was just reacting to that. I can handle it, it's totally not a big deal. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just being cheeky. No intervention necessary.

Lucky Bob

06-30-2003, 08:08 AM

I think it's far from spiraling out of control. Lucky Bob's statement was not the first in which I felt my intelligence was being called into question in this thread, so I was just reacting to that. I can handle it, it's totally not a big deal. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just being cheeky. No intervention necessary.Ein's right. I wasn't referencing your intelligence. I was merely pointing out that though we disagree on most issues concerning this case, we do agree on one. Sorry you took it wrong, but seriously, nobody's out to get you, here! I'm just trying to point out that this whole decision by the Supreme Court is a very questionable one from a legal standpoint, and leaves the door open to a lot of undesirable actions yet to come. Even in the homosexual community, the mere fact that this ruling legalizes gay marriage shouldn't be any excuse to celebrate it because of its serious open-endedness.

I know everyone's saying, "Well, those other things just won't happen." The same was probably said about the protection of homosexual rights 60 years ago! Just because it isn't happening at this very moment doesn't mean that it won't happen at all. (Not that that rule applies in this case, orginizations like NAMBLA are already trying to push their agenda in courts.)

If you want to celebrate legalized homosexual acts, fine. But don't rule out the possibility of bad things coming from this.

BTW, the issue is no longer in the hands of "lawmakers", as you implied earlier. Now that the Supreme Court has declared private sexual activity legislation as unconstitutional, the Court has effectively taken all laws concerning this issue, (past, present, and future,) and has placed them under its questionable interpretation of the Constitution. Congress might not make a law declaring pedophilia legal, but all it would take is one Supreme Court decision to do so.

Brainatra

06-30-2003, 01:26 PM

>>Yeah, I pretty much gave up on replying to the "it's so gay" posts. Then again, in all fairness, I haven't seen that much of them lately<<

Try Usenet ;-) (ex: "Spongebob is *soooo* gay, d00d!" "I think Homer/Milhouse/Maggie is gay", etc.)

>>That's unsafe sex, not gay sex. I guarantee that if most women were as easy as most men are, infection rates between heterosexual and homosexual people would be more balanced.<<

Yep...and HIV/safe sex is an equal concern for non-monogomous sexually active people, gay or straight...

>>Exactly. And I welcome that. That way, when they hear cases about pedophilia and bestiality, they can rule that, unlike gay sex, those sex acts have victims.<<

Indeed...

As for gay marriage (to stay vaguely on topic), I'd rather see federal-level equal rights protection in areas of employment/housing/public accomodations (like there is on the basis of religion,race, etc. via such things as the Civil Rights Act of 1964) first... not that I'm defending the "sanctity" of Homer and Marge's right to get married at "Shotgun Pete's drive-through wedding chapel" in Vegas and automatically gaining the federally-granted privilege of hospital visitation and inheritance rights under federal law just by doing that, or anything ;-)

>>Yes, even simple-minded ME can understand that. *rolls eyes* I also understand that even if they do use this arguement, they'll be shot down, because any reasonable, non-biased person can realize that, again, THOSE sex acts are harmful to the people/animals involved. And if MY simple mind can come up with that reasoning, I'm sure lawmakers will too.

So what do you think, Brainatra? Did I do a good job of promoting the agenda, or are you going to report me back at HQ?<<

Well, you forgot to send them a copy of the recently revised-for-OS X "Panther"/Windows XP edition of the Agenda(TM)----so I'll have to issue you a few demerits. ;-)

-B.

Steve Jester

06-30-2003, 02:34 PM

Well, you forgot to send them a copy of the recently revised-for-OS X "Panther"/Windows XP edition of the Agenda(TM)----so I'll have to issue you a few demerits. ;-)

-B.

Agenda, what agenda? *notices a bunch of papers in his hand, visible is a plian white cover titled "The Agenda(tm)", hides said bunch of papers* :D

Nightwing

06-30-2003, 04:08 PM

So what do you think, Brainatra? Did I do a good job of promoting the agenda, or are you going to report me back at HQ?

I personally welcome all sorts of opinions, because there's nothing I love more than challenging, testing, and improving on my own, but as a mod I think I need to step in here, with a reminder from the forum rules:

First rule of Gay Club: you do NOT TALK about Gay Club!

....what? Oh come on I'm sure it's in there some where...don't give me that look.

Seriously though, here are my views. Oh, and the part about challenging, testing and improving on my own opinions was serious, the rest was giggles...while THIS part is babble...

I'm getting incredibly tired of grown adults playing games with words that were written hundreds of years ago and interpreting them in a way that reflects their opinion. That isn't just reasoning, or building us laws, morals, or a future. It's just the game you play in politics. And it sickens me. That's why I'm not completely fond of all the Supreme Court decisions. Someone mentioned that an advocate of homosexuality said you can't legislate morals? Frankly I thought I came up with that saying. I thought of it all by myself and wrote it down because I thought it was insightfull a few years ago. It's a little blow to the ego that someone got it before me, but in any case, I agree. You can't hand-write morals, and attempts can be VERY dangerous if not properly weighed and measured.

Is this sex law thing just an attempt to help gays? If so, I'm sure it's appreciated, but I think they're going about it the wrong way, since there are still the acts of incest and pedophilia to consider when this law is discussed. And yeah I agree with the fact that the "private sexual practices" thing in the law is much to vague, but I don’t understand why those who would be considered to disagree with homosexuality are still using it as reasoning why it was stupid to pass the law. :p The opposite side agrees with you already, let's keep going with the debates! ;) It's like when Bob O'Reilly did that TV special on music's influence on children who don't HAVE any parental influence cuz they don't have guardians or whatever. It's like, yeah we know....problem doesn't end by pointing it out and then making a face toward the camera. :p

So I guess without babbling too much (trust me, I've got chops I haven't even used yet) I could sum up by saying that in many many ways I agree with Einbebop's logic in thinking the Supreme Court seems to be getting redundant, but I don't agree with his reason for his logic.

The thing about the death sentence conviction also makes me sick, by reason of another topic. We can call it something like: Let's all make the victims the criminals, and the criminals the victims. I agree with being more open minded and less "black and white" but it seems the people being prosecuted only preach this when it's convenient, and can get them out of trouble they more than likely deserve to be in.

Supreme

07-01-2003, 02:14 AM

I think the reason that many people have a problem with male homosexual sex is that they don't get it. I mean, I get lesbians. Poontang is fantastic! The butt simply isn't an inviting environment. It's made for the nastiest stuff in our bodies to exit. PT, however, is pure pleasure :p

Also, as offensive as it is to some, the gay=pedophile/degenerate is EXACTLY the argument that the gay opposition uses (not a member, but I have sat in on a couple of meetings ;) )

Chris Wood

07-01-2003, 02:29 AM

That's unsafe sex, not gay sex. I guarantee that if most women were as easy as most men are, infection rates between heterosexual and homosexual people would be more balanced.

That doesn't entirely explain the difference in infection rates. There is also the issue that certain sexual activities are much more likely to cause abrasions on the skin, better enabling transmission of the virus.

Bud 'n Lou

07-01-2003, 02:58 AM

That doesn't entirely explain the difference in infection rates. There is also the issue that certain sexual activities are much more likely to cause abrasions on the skin, better enabling transmission of the virus.
That's true, but anal sex is not synonymous with gay sex. There are other methods for homosexuals to have sex than anal sex, and anal sex can also be enjoyed by heterosexuals. I believe in the Texas sodomy case, the law only banned anal sex for gays, so it's obviously not for concern for health and safety in this case, but based on religious reasons.

Cyclops

07-01-2003, 12:34 PM

On a somewhat related note:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=5cdf858c5ea1eda4&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1056751810713&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Gay Marriage going to be legalized in Canada.

I always find it hilarious that people still think that homosexuality is an act of will. Tell that to my brother, who's had to endure endless years of torture becuase of his sexual preference. He was born with a love for men, and he's a great guy who I love to death. Too bad there are people who are such idiots and bigots that can't see past their own ignorance. There are people who do homosexual acts out of interest or curiosity, but there are people born that way, like my brother, and there's nothing wrong with it. The people who say homosexuality is deviant or wrong just make me shake my head.

And once again, Canada proves once again why it's such a great country. I don't live there, but I've visited it time and time again. Such a great country with some fantastic cities and amazing country scenery.

Mackenzie Rainelle

07-01-2003, 01:33 PM

Finally popping in because of something I caught in yesterday's News-Sentinal.

Frist endorses proposed ban on gay marriages
June 30, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Sunday he supports a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual marriage in the United States.

Frist said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.

The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states.

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

"Whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

Asked whether he supports an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between - what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined - as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."

Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled.

As drafted, the proposal says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds.

"Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions - with the local norms, the local mores - are being able to have their input in reflected.

"And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."

::razzes Frist:: The man seriously needs to get a life.

Chris Wood

07-01-2003, 04:57 PM

I guess the concept of gay marriage is OK, but it's got to be pretty embarrassing for the "bride" and "bridesmaids." Or not, as the case may be.

Lucky Bob

07-02-2003, 06:26 AM

I always find it hilarious that people still think that homosexuality is an act of will. Tell that to my brother, who's had to endure endless years of torture becuase of his sexual preference. He was born with a love for men, and he's a great guy who I love to death. Too bad there are people who are such idiots and bigots that can't see past their own ignorance. There are people who do homosexual acts out of interest or curiosity, but there are people born that way, like my brother, and there's nothing wrong with it. The people who say homosexuality is deviant or wrong just make me shake my head.

Your opinion, and that's fine. However, due to lack of hard evidence that some humans are hard-wired to be homosexual, that's where it ends with me. Mere opinion.

But let's suppose that homosexuality is an inborn thing, what about all of the other "alternatives?" Are some people hard-wired to find animals attractive? Underage kids? Where does it end?

Really, based hard evidence, about the only lobbyist group that can truthfully say that they are "born that way" are nudists. :p (But most humans have grown out of that.)

Bud 'n Lou

07-02-2003, 08:08 AM

You're right that there's no solid proof of gay people being born that way, but I think the point Cyclops was making was that it's not an act of will. I could argue that I too believe that it is not a choice, and cite my personal experiences, but it doesn't make a difference. Whichever side you agree with, I don't see how either validates, or invalidates homosexuality. Just as you pointed out, people could argue that their attraction to animals or children is natural too. And maybe they're right. On the other hand, it can be said that practicing a religion is a choice too. But that doesn't make it wrong or immoral. It would be more fair if people based their decision on whether or not they really thought homosexuality was harmful or not.

...And I think that's just what the Supreme Court did when they made their ruling! See how I brought it all back on topic like that? Smoooooooth.

Supreme

07-02-2003, 11:17 AM

People need to stop using the terms "sexual preference" or "-behavior" if they don't want homosexuality to be seen as a choice (will). Preference is a choice, while behavior can be modified. I've heard "sexual alignment" and "sexuality" used, which sound less flippant.

Cyclops

07-02-2003, 11:26 AM

I just don't see homosexuality being an act of will. Like being born a heterosexual, I also believe that people are born homosexual, or born with whatever sexual desires, no matter how bizarre or off the beaten path. It makes no sense to me that everyone is born heterosexual, while homsexuals, etc, "choose" to be different.

SergeantSafrit

07-02-2003, 11:40 AM

I say as long as they keep it private it should be legal. As long as they don't force you to watch why should you care? Like in North Carolina they have an anti oral sex law. Why it is a private matter why does the goverment think the can regulate things like that? Even though this ruling was passed NC didn't revoke the law because they say the ruling pertains to homosexuals olny. It doesn't it pertains to privacy. I say its their life let them be happy as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights.

EinBebop

07-02-2003, 12:18 PM

But is it Constitutional?

Has the Constitution become irrelevent? Or is the gay community supporting this on a "two wrongs make a right" basis?

Interesting... I've been reading the dissenting opinion by Scalia, who argues that the same criteria used to overturn the precident set seventeen years ago on the homosexual sex issue could also be applied to Roe v Wade. And that's a VERY bad precident to set, considering that we will likely have a conservative Court by the time Bush leaves office in 2008.

And I didn't touch on this before when I made the statement before, but this another part of the reason I think this is not a huge victory. I really hope that the flimsy issue of privacy rights will be addressed when the conservative court gets in, and this decision could very well be turned in a short time.

The liberals are preparing for a conservative court as well. The Supreme Court seems to be taking on some choice cases lately. The Dems are promising to filibuster, and propaganda pieces saying that overturning Roe v Wade will make abortion illegal are already airing.

Bud 'n Lou

07-02-2003, 12:51 PM

Clayface

07-02-2003, 12:57 PM

EinBebop

07-02-2003, 01:08 PM

Or you could go to the Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) website. (It took me until today, too.) :)

Lucky Bob

07-02-2003, 03:27 PM

I've been too lazy up until now to actually try to find the full ruling on the sodomy case, but all I could find are articles that quote bits and pieces. Does anyone know where I can find it? Because the more I think about it, the more I find it ridiculous that they left the ruling so vague and open to interpretation. There must have been more to it than in the quotes I've read (which might have been purposely misleading, depending on the opinion of the person who wrote the article). Yes, it's page 3 of the thread, and I am just now asking for this.

Well, let's look at it from the Supreme Court's point of view.

The only basis the Supreme Court has for ruling anything is the Constitution. And one would be hard-pressed to find any provision for homosexuality in the Constitution, or any other sexual act. (Nice try with religion back there, but the free excersize of religion is guaranteed in the first amendment. So, that argument is thrown out the window.)

The only part of the Constitution that the lawyers could use was the fourteenth amendment, which states the following:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let's start with "privileges and immunities." Where can every privilege and immunity granted to the American people be found? The Constitution! Are sexual acts protected by the Constitution? Nope.

That brings us to the "due process" clause, which is what the whole case was based on. Due process insures that laws are administered fairly throughout the nation. A law which prevents wife beating, but leaves the door open for husband beating, for example, could be used as an example of lack of due process.

Now, when a law prohibiting homosexual acts is said to be in violation of due process, we need to determine why. Is it because it unfairly regulates one sexual preference more than the others? That seems to be the position taken here. Therefore, we can't discriminate against homosexual acts because it is an unfair discrimination compared to legislation concerning other sexual acts, right?

Wrong.

I don't know what Justice Kennedy had for breakfast that morning, but he should have realized that other sexual acts are quite often regulated against. There are laws against prostitution, pedophilia, and the like. There is really no reason why homosexual acts should fall under a special category of immunity, except for the fact that the homosexual community is very good at lobbying.

Thus, the Court is faced with a problem. If they say that just homosexual acts, or even simply sexual acts between consenting adults cannot be regulated against, they could be accused of denying the "rights" of all the other groups. And then we're back to square one.

Justice Kennedy seems to have decided to bypass that by making the quite troubling statement that the government doesn't have the right to regulate ANY private sexual behavior. A worrying thought, but if you want to grant homosexual acts immunity under the due process clause, then you have to extend it to all other cases in order to properly interpret it using your own rules. If outlawing homosexual acts is bad because it discriminates against one particular set of "private sexual acts", then we must also lift the bans on other types of "private sexual acts."

So, that's why the Court can't, from a legal standpoint, grant homosexuality special immunity all to itself, based on a questionable translation of the "due process" clause.

Drachentöter

07-02-2003, 04:06 PM

Regardless of my personal feelings toward homosexuality, I do not think the Supreme Court was in error, considering that we live in a society where discrimination of gays is recognized as wrong. To me, it feels as if dissent toward the decision stems from a general feeling of distaste toward homosexuality. After all, it is OBVIOUS, and I mean OBVIOUS, that the Supreme Court is not endorsing pedophilia, bestiality or any other such sexual behavior which VICTIMIZES a party.

You cannot arrest two consenting adults who are having sex in the privacy of their own homes. The state shouldn't even have to make a decision on that. The officers who fined and arrested Lawrence and his partner were acting out of bigotry. Why should the state care if no one is being hurt in the process?

EinBebop

07-02-2003, 04:17 PM

Regardless of my personal feelings toward homosexuality, I do not think the Supreme Court was in error, considering that we live in a society where discrimination of gays is recognized as wrong. To me, it feels as if dissent toward the decision stems from a general feeling of distaste toward homosexuality. Well, I think your agreement with the Supreme Court stems from your bias in favor of homosexuality.

See how easy it is? :p Now that we've gotten the silliness out of the way:

In reference to the first part, I'll repeat it one more time: A BAD LAW IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. People seem to be ignoring this, and it seems almost... dare I say it... biased? :eek:

Drachentöter

07-02-2003, 06:59 PM

In reference to the first part, I'll repeat it one more time: A BAD LAW IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. People seem to be ignoring this, and it seems almost... dare I say it... biased? :eek:

Okay, but if a bad law is upheld by the federal courts, does that mean the Supreme Court should leave it in action? If it is true that the Supreme Court can only change laws it deems unconstitutional, then I think that severely limits the potential of such an establishment.

EinBebop

07-02-2003, 08:49 PM

Okay, but if a bad law is upheld by the federal courts, does that mean the Supreme Court should leave it in action? If it is true that the Supreme Court can only change laws it deems unconstitutional, then I think that severely limits the potential of such an establishment.That was the intention. The federal government once had a specific purpose. It was once intended that the states, for the most part, govern themselves, while enjoying the advantages of being part of a larger unit which would "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense" and all that.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is over federal law only (which theoretically should be rather limited) and should only be involved in state laws where a question of Constitutionality arises.

Brainatra

07-02-2003, 09:35 PM

Skipping over a bunch 'a posts debating the "morality" of homosexuality:

>> guess the concept of gay marriage is OK, but it's got to be pretty embarrassing for the "bride" and "bridesmaids." Or not, as the case may be.

Well, it wasn't "embarrassing" to my two friends who went to Vermont for a civil union ceremony (though I wasn't there with them to play "bridesmaid" or anything :-) ). Plus, afterwards, they went to Ben 'n Jerry's for ice cream!

-B.
That was...slightly off-topic.

Chris Wood

07-03-2003, 02:27 AM

Bud 'n Lou

07-03-2003, 05:36 AM

The only basis the Supreme Court has for ruling anything is the Constitution. And one would be hard-pressed to find any provision for homosexuality in the Constitution, or any other sexual act. (Nice try with religion back there, but the free excersize of religion is guaranteed in the first amendment. So, that argument is thrown out the window.)
No, my arguement isn't "thrown out the window." No, there's no provision for any sexual acts in the Constitution, but it was written hundreds of years ago. If the Constitution were perfect to start out with, we wouldn't have needed all those Amendments. Back then, homosexuality didn't even have a name, and sex in general was not something too open to discussion. Obviously, the times have changed since then. Just because the right to eat peanuts isn't explicitly stated as a right in the Constitution, like the right to practice religion, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to eat peanuts if we please. If the Constitution were as black and white as that, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to interpret what our rights are, would we?
Now, when a law prohibiting homosexual acts is said to be in violation of due process, we need to determine why. Is it because it unfairly regulates one sexual preference more than the others? That seems to be the position taken here. Therefore, we can't discriminate against homosexual acts because it is an unfair discrimination compared to legislation concerning other sexual acts, right?
Now you're catching on! In part, anyway.
I don't know what Justice Kennedy had for breakfast that morning, but he should have realized that other sexual acts are quite often regulated against. There are laws against prostitution, pedophilia, and the like. There is really no reason why homosexual acts should fall under a special category of immunity, except for the fact that the homosexual community is very good at lobbying.

Thus, the Court is faced with a problem. If they say that just homosexual acts, or even simply sexual acts between consenting adults cannot be regulated against, they could be accused of denying the "rights" of all the other groups. And then we're back to square one.

Justice Kennedy seems to have decided to bypass that by making the quite troubling statement that the government doesn't have the right to regulate ANY private sexual behavior. A worrying thought, but if you want to grant homosexual acts immunity under the due process clause, then you have to extend it to all other cases in order to properly interpret it using your own rules. If outlawing homosexual acts is bad because it discriminates against one particular set of "private sexual acts", then we must also lift the bans on other types of "private sexual acts."

So, that's why the Court can't, from a legal standpoint, grant homosexuality special immunity all to itself, based on a questionable translation of the "due process" clause.
Now, as I suspected, this is where the twisting begins. The quote you used earlier in the thread was this one:

"The state cannot demean [the plaintiffs'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

You took this way out of context. If you read the full ruling, it is clear that what is being discussed is homosexual sex, and not ALL "private sex acts," which, as you've stated, would extend to the whole Grocery List of Evil Sex Acts (GLESA). And this quote in particular is in reference specifically to the plaintiffs in the case, and the private sexual conduct they engaged in at the time of their arrest. It was not a general statement about all private sex acts. The ruling makes clear that they are talking about consensual sex between adults. Being that it is so specific, this effectively throws your assertion that the ruling also applies to the GLESA right out the window. Of course, it's a free country, and the GLESA supporters can interpret the ruling that way if they want to, and they may even try to get those sex acts legalized, as it is also their right to do so. But since, once again, the ruling clearly states that it is in reference to consensual adult sex, their efforts will fail. If the words "consensual" and "adult" are still not enough to convince you of this, there is always my list earlier in the thread in which I pointed out the various ways homosexuality differs from the GLESA (bottom line, those other sex acts have victims, while consensual homosexual sex between adults does not). And if THAT doesn't convince you, I suppose nothing will. You say that "there is really no reason why homosexual acts should fall under a special category of immunity, except for the fact that the homosexual community is very good at lobbying." I say that the only reason there is TO criminalize homosexual sex is based on religious beliefs. And if that is the ONLY reason one has, I don't think it's enough to justify criminalizing something.
Now if you REALLY wanna talk about scary, in Scalia's dissent, it seems that he's worried that this ruling would invalidate, among other things, masturbation laws. Now, until now, I didn't even know that masturbation WAS illegal in some places. And it seems to me that, should we allow him to further his agenda, masturbation would be illegal in ALL states! That's right. In addition to going blind, the majority of Americans will also be going to the big house. Oh sure, things will be peaceful at first, while the deviants are all locked away for their heinous crime. But when they're released, they'll have to register as sex offenders. They'll never get a decent job. They'll have no choice but to turn to a life of crime. Robbery and murder will run rampant. Among the dead will be babies. America will fall into chaos. Then the world will blown up. It's a slippery slope, people. A SLIPPERY SLOPE, I TELL YOU!

Lucky Bob

07-03-2003, 07:46 AM

No, my arguement isn't "thrown out the window." No, there's no provision for any sexual acts in the Constitution, but it was written hundreds of years ago. If the Constitution were perfect to start out with, we wouldn't have needed all those Amendments.

Maybe so, but since when do we need the Supreme Court to add to the Constitution? Last I checked, Congress did that.

Back then, homosexuality didn't even have a name, and sex in general was not something too open to discussion. Obviously, the times have changed since then. Just because the right to eat peanuts isn't explicitly stated as a right in the Constitution, like the right to practice religion, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to eat peanuts if we please. If the Constitution were as black and white as that, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to interpret what our rights are, would we?

No, if the Constitution were so all-encompassing, we wouldn't need states. The idea is to let the state and local governments keep some sort of autonomy. Yes, they could concievably regulate against eating peanuts. I know of quite a few "dry" counties that prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Now, as I suspected, this is where the twisting begins. The quote you used earlier in the thread was this one: "The state cannot demean [the plaintiffs'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." You took this way out of context. If you read the full ruling, it is clear that what is being discussed is homosexual sex, and not ALL "private sex acts," which, as you've stated, would extend to the whole Grocery List of Evil Sex Acts (GLESA). And this quote in particular is in reference specifically to the plaintiffs in the case, and the private sexual conduct they engaged in at the time of their arrest. It was not a general statement about all private sex acts. The ruling makes clear that they are talking about consensual sex between adults. Being that it is so specific, this effectively throws your assertion that the ruling also applies to the GLESA right out the window. Of course, it's a free country, and the GLESA supporters can interpret the ruling that way if they want to, and they may even try to get those sex acts legalized, as it is also their right to do so. But since, once again, the ruling clearly states that it is in reference to consensual adult sex, their efforts will fail. If the words "consensual" and "adult" are still not enough to convince you of this, there is always my list earlier in the thread in which I pointed out the various ways homosexuality differs from the GLESA (bottom line, those other sex acts have victims, while consensual homosexual sex between adults does not). And if THAT doesn't convince you, I suppose nothing will. You say that "there is really no reason why homosexual acts should fall under a special category of immunity, except for the fact that the homosexual community is very good at lobbying." I say that the only reason there is TO criminalize homosexual sex is based on religious beliefs. And if that is the ONLY reason one has, I don't think it's enough to justify criminalizing something.

On what legal grounds were homosexual acts legalized, though? Because the plaintiffs felt that due process was not extended fully because, in their opinion, homosexual acts were "singled out" more than others. If the Court agrees, that means that other groups such as NAMBLA have the right to challenge their criminalization. Even if the whole opinion was solely in protection of ALL consensual adult acts, the Constitution doesn't spell that out in the 14th Amendment. The only plausible legal reason for using the 14th Amendment as justification in this case is because you feel that it protects sexual conduct. Period. If not, then NAMBLA is going to have an even stronger case in claiming that the law is unfairly discriminating against a certain type of sexual conduct, and that the court misinterpreted the law by limiting it to only consenting adults. They have a point, where in the 14th Amendment is due process limited to adults?

The Supreme Court should make rulings based on the Constitution alone. If they use any other criterion, they are nolonger interpreting the law. Rather, they are writing the law.

Now if you REALLY wanna talk about scary, in Scalia's dissent, it seems that he's worried that this ruling would invalidate, among other things, masturbation laws. Now, until now, I didn't even know that masturbation WAS illegal in some places. And it seems to me that, should we allow him to further his agenda, masturbation would be illegal in ALL states! That's right. In addition to going blind, the majority of Americans will also be going to the big house. Oh sure, things will be peaceful at first, while the deviants are all locked away for their heinous crime. But when they're released, they'll have to register as sex offenders. They'll never get a decent job. They'll have no choice but to turn to a life of crime. Robbery and murder will run rampant. Among the dead will be babies. America will fall into chaos. Then the world will blown up. It's a slippery slope, people. A SLIPPERY SLOPE, I TELL YOU!

Like all rehabed drug users, right?