Supreme Court strikes down gay sex ban

[Wormboy]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=1&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

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

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

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

The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.

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

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented.

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

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

The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, have retreated from public view. They were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case — Bowers v. Hardwick — as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.

A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.

At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose.

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

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

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

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


It's about time. The only thing that really appals me is that the vote was only 6-3. Apparently three judges think it is constitutional to legislate what kind of sex people can have in their private lives.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. OMFG. Yes, its totally signing on to an agenda to ensure that all US citizens have the same basic human rights :rolleyes:


Nonetheless, this is a large step forward for human rights in general.

[Uber_olafsun]

Its not just Gay sex. Its legal for me to do some things with my wife now.:D I am no longer a criminal.

[MuaDib]

Originally posted by Uber_olafsun
Its not just Gay sex. Its legal for me to do some things with my wife now.:D I am no longer a criminal.

Thanks for sharing that.

[RandBlade]

:) :up:

So does that mean all 13 States laws have been invalidated?

[Lewkowski]

Well the Supreme court did right on this decision. Btw in 9 of those states it was illegal for hetro couples to have anal or oral sex. :rolleyes:

Government needs to just get out of people's personal lives all together.

[Wormboy]

Agreed.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm very pleased to hear this. The court couldn't possably continue with the reasoning of the 1986 decision, which basically invalidated sodomy laws that applied to hetersexuals and affirmed them against homosexuals. But now--to answer your question, Rand-- all such laws in all states will be unconstitutional.

The main arguments put up against making these laws unconstitutional is that they allow the state to pursue the "compelling interest of morality". :rolleyes:

[Parmenio]

I will have to read the opinion of the court, including the dissenting opinion, then I will see what the dillio is.

By the way I support this action, from where I stand now. This is between two consenting adults that takes place in the privacy of their home. But these laws, in the 13 states that had them, are rarely if ever enforced, we have tons of outdated laws that state some really weird stuff, so this isn't too big a deal, more symbolic than anything.

[Wormboy]

I bet it didn't feel too symbolic to the two guys in Texas.

Tho in general I agree that you are right, when some idiot resurrects laws like this, the SC needs to address them.

[Moridin00]

I think its hilarious that Texas is nervous because this law relaxation could 'lead to homosexual marriages'! :haha:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Moridin00
I think its hilarious that Texas is nervous because this law relaxation could 'lead to homosexual marriages'! :haha:

What sensible reactionaries are worried about is the same principle being applied to the military.

[clokwerk1945]

YEAH GO HOMOS! GOOD JOB GUYS! KEEP FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS YOU DESERVE! I hope the ban on Gay marriages gets eliminated soon, In my state the mormons started the initiative, and if for nothing Else I wanna see someone squash their smarmy bigotted religion.

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
What sensible reactionaries are worried about is the same principle being applied to the military.
'Sensible' reactionaries?

I would call their reaction unintelligent. If they are worried about cases of rape becoming 'legalised' through this law change in the military, that doesn't deny the right for military personnel to engage in consensual sex with each other.

Rape is an issue not tied to sexual intimacy. It's an assault, and should be prevented like any other assault cases in the military, no matter where/who you're gettin' it from.

If they're worried about de-masculinisation of the military, they are narrow-minded bigots. Gay ppl can fight just as hard as straight ppl, no questions asked.

I find it difficult to find more areas of the military that this law would affect - perhaps you could enlighten me Fuzzy?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Moridin00
'Sensible' reactionaries?

I would call their reaction unintelligent. If they are worried about cases of rape becoming 'legalised' through this law change in the military, that doesn't deny the right for military personnel to engage in consensual sex with each other.

Rape is an issue not tied to sexual intimacy. It's an assault, and should be prevented like any other assault cases in the military, no matter where/who you're gettin' it from.

If they're worried about de-masculinisation of the military, they are narrow-minded bigots. Gay ppl can fight just as hard as straight ppl, no questions asked.

I find it difficult to find more areas of the military that this law would affect - perhaps you could enlighten me Fuzzy?

They don't want gays in the military *different people have different reasons for this* and the reasoning in this decision can easily be interpreted to mean the military's ban on gays is unconstitutional. The sensible reactionaries are worried about that because it's more likely to come about than the SC declaring it unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry. They aren't going to touch anything that has a constitutional amendment to the contrary already under consideration (which is the present case) and, I'm afraid to say, even if they did consider it, they'd probably decide the wrong way, Congress' Defense of Marriage Act gives them cover to hide behind. They're reactionaries for what they want, and they're sensible because they have accurately scoped out the threat potentials.

[Uber_olafsun]

How do they recognize marriage from other countries? Kinda a shame if some immagrants are living in sin :confused:

[Wormboy]

I'm less worried about sin than I am legal rights. As it is now, you have few regarding love/partnership if you are gay. A fundamental injustice, IMO.

[Parmenio]

Well I just read the opinions of the court and now I have to say that I am against the overturning.

I have heard many a person try to castigate Scalia for his dissent, but all the do is give a sound bite of what his over all opinion is. That soundbite severely missrepresents what he said in his entire dissent, and is used as some kind of scare tactic.

The case name is Lawrence-v-Texas (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf), (his dissent starts on about 30) and his dissent makes some perfectly legal and well rounded arguments.

I don't want to have to go into it all but he makes a few central points.

1) Is that the court has done a severe disservice to stare decisis by doing this. They have consistently upheld the Casey rulling and the Bowers ruling too, these cases upheld these types of laws. He sited at least 10 cases when the court (this court too) has upheld that the state can have laws that deal with morals, and more importantly homosexualty.

Also when overturning somthing like this you have to have very good reasons, like a "solid state tradition". This is patently not the case since most all states at sometime or another has had sodomy laws (all the 13 original colonies had them). The reason only a few states have them on the books is because they have been erased legislatively.

Also when making this type of ruling you need to base your ovverruling on the fact that the behavior is a "fundamental state right". Which it isn't as he stated, quite convincingly I might add. (also the majority opinion of the court went out of it's way to avoid classifying sodomy as a FSR, they tip-toed around the issue)

2) That by adandoning the laws on Sodomy that they are opening a pandora's box of litigation from people with all sorts of agenda's.

3) That the reasoning that states shouldn't enforce morality is patently false. If sodomy is a moral choice, then what about incest, bigamy, same-sex marriage, ************, bestiality, adultery, fornication, and obscenity. All of which states have laws for, some not all, and these aren't really enforced to the fullest extent of the law too.

Also he states that if states can't enforce sexual relations, that they deem obscene and immoral, how can they enforce drug laws that are moral choices, among every other moral choice that the communities deem immoral.

4) That the court states that there is no "rational basis" for this law. This means that the law has no real state interest. Which is patently false, it is just that that interest is that they believe homosexual activity is immoral. (agree or disagree)

As they believe that other things shouldn't be done in their state and that it erodes the morals of society, he concludes that they should be able to enable these laws, because that is what laws are there for. To say one thing is wrong and one right.

He points out that he disagree's with this law, and would rather have the activists try to change the law by the legislative process as opposed to the courts. If society has changes so much than that wouldn't be a problem (the fact that they went to the courts to get the job done is an indictment against the political court system our soctiey has become).........



There is more, but you get the point, it was a very legalistic ruling, not some homophobic rant, that the press has tried to present it as. (manifested my Wormboy being scared that a man like Scalia is on the bench, even though Scalia went out of his way to say that he has no problem with homosexuals and that he thinks the law should have been taken off the books, he just thinks that it should be done legislatively as opposd by activist courts)

For me I agree that this should have been done legislatively, not by this court. This is a contentious issue, and the court shouldn't jump in the middle and settle it, if something is this hot it should be done by the democratic process. :up:

[Loki]

Originally posted by Parmenio
3) That the reasoning that states shouldn't enforce morality is patently false. If sodomy is a moral choice, then what about incest, bigamy, same-sex marriage, ************, bestiality, adultery, fornication, and obscenity. All of which states have laws for, some not all, and these aren't really enforced to the fullest extent of the law too.

Bigamy and incest don't belong in those examples because they very often involve someone in a position of power taking advantage of someone who is not. I don't see why the rest should be illegal. If someone wants to have sex with someone who's not married, himself, or an animal, what business does the government have in telling them that they can't?:confused:

[Steve_Shapiro]

Saying people should be able to have sex with animals is gross, Loki. It's not only offending but it also doesn't fit with the part of "moral laws". I'm fine with gay guys doing their own thing, but legalizing bestiality is a bit far.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
Saying people should be able to have sex with animals is gross, Loki. It's not only offending but it also doesn't fit with the part of "moral laws". I'm fine with gay guys doing their own thing, but legalizing bestiality is a bit far.

Why should something be made illegal just because it's "gross"? The only reason to oppose it would be animal abuse.

What if someone thinks that praying is gross? Does that mean that we should make praying illegal?

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
Why should something be made illegal just because it's "gross"? The only reason to oppose it would be animal abuse.

What if someone thinks that praying is gross? Does that mean that we should make praying illegal?

I said it's not just gross, but it doesn't fit with the "moral laws". Animal abuse would then be defined under a "moral law" to protect that innocent animal.

What's with you always on top of religious stuff anyways? Making praying as an example is a bad idea.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
I said it's not just gross, but it doesn't fit with the "moral laws". Animal abuse would then be defined under a "moral law" to protect that innocent animal.

What's with you always on top of religious stuff anyways? Making praying as an example is a bad idea.

Why should we have "moral laws"? It's not up to the government to decide what is moral and what is not. Their side of the social contract requires them to give us security in exchange for our promise not to overthrow the government. I don't see how forcing us to obey their version of morality makes the people more secure.

Because most of the people who wish to impose their morality upon others are religious.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
Why should we have "moral laws"? It's not up to the government to decide what is moral and what is not. Their side of the social contract requires them to give us security in exchange for our promise not to overthrow the government. I don't see how forcing us to obey their version of morality makes the people more secure.

Because most of the people who wish to impose their morality upon others are religious.

Umm, Loki? I really don't think the religous people pushing their agenda, or those who give them tacit support, outnumber the animal rights activists and THEIR tacit supporters. And animal rights laws are just as much an imposition of morality as what the religious are trying to do. Imposing morality is not the cut and dried issue you try to make it seem.

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Umm, Loki? I really don't think the religous people pushing their agenda, or those who give them tacit support, outnumber the animal rights activists and THEIR tacit supporters. And animal rights laws are just as much an imposition of morality as what the religious are trying to do. Imposing morality is not the cut and dried issue you try to make it seem.

Morality laws are laws that don't protect anyone, but rather preserve some imagined principle. In fact, that's a paradox. By that definition, they're not laws at all.

I admit I didn't think the bestiality thing through. Animals do have some rights, and that's probably one of them.

How do you justify laws whose purpose is to stop people from doing something that does not harm anyone (physically, emotionally, or economically)?

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
Morality laws are laws that don't protect anyone, but rather preserve some imagined principle. In fact, that's a paradox. By that definition, they're not laws at all.

How do you justify laws whose purpose is to stop people from doing something that does not harm anyone (physically, emotionally, or economically)?


It's our purpose because we voted the politicians in office, and they are the ones that made most of the laws we have now. It's the "social contract" we have with them because we entrusted them with taking care of things for us, and for us to watch if they are good at what they do or not. Yes what I said may have some logical holes in it, but that's the way things are in our life. Even as much as people don't like something, you can't change it right away.

[Loki]

It's up to the politicians to make laws, and it's up to the courts to decide if those laws are valid. The Constitution gives everyone the right to privacy, and it is certainly not reasonable to take away that right to keep people from doing something that harms no one.

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
It's up to the politicians to make laws, and it's up to the courts to decide if those laws are valid. The Constitution gives everyone the right to privacy, and it is certainly not reasonable to take away that right to keep people from doing something that harms no one.

I didn't happen to notice your" laws harming no one" part in your last post, sorry.

If a law is not needed, then it is done away with seeing as how our courts finally ruled on whether certain laws in 13 states were valid or not. You can't say it wasn't valid in the past because then there was more issues of whether or not there was a "victim". Since times are changing and homosexuals are gaining more ground in civil rights, I would expect that you understand I'm ok with it. I never said that they couldn't have their own privacy.

[YouMayKnowme]

ok i didn't read everything on here so if somebody has said something like this already sorry.

erm... You know what i don't get what Gay People are thinking, i mean thay are growing in numbers everyday and sooner or later there won't be enough strait people to keep the world populated
and we will become exstinked. (can't spell lol)

and anyways there is no way that being with a guy is better than a woman so thay must not be thinking right



BTW i mean no offince to Gays or lezs/bi's

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
I didn't happen to notice your" laws harming no one" part in your last post, sorry.

If a law is not needed, then it is done away with seeing as how our courts finally ruled on whether certain laws in 13 states were valid or not. You can't say it wasn't valid in the past because then there was more issues of whether or not there was a "victim". Since times are changing and homosexuals are gaining more ground in civil rights, I would expect that you understand I'm ok with it. I never said that they couldn't have their own privacy.

Well the dissenting judge's excuse was that this ruling would be a serious blow to morality. Why should he define what is moral and what is not? Using his very own line of reasoning, communists were able to stop people from practicing religion. By allowing these types of laws, people are just asking for someone to come and take away their rights one by one.

[Lewkowski]

3) That the reasoning that states shouldn't enforce morality is patently false. If sodomy is a moral choice, then what about incest, bigamy, same-sex marriage, ************, bestiality, adultery, fornication, and obscenity. All of which states have laws for, some not all, and these aren't really enforced to the fullest extent of the law too.

If sex is consentual then it should be legal. Animals and Children can not consent of course.

Morality should not be a conern of the government.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Loki
Well the dissenting judge's excuse was that this ruling would be a serious blow to morality. Why should he define what is moral and what is not? Using his very own line of reasoning, communists were able to stop people from practicing religion. By allowing these types of laws, people are just asking for someone to come and take away their rights one by one.

did you even read my post Loki? If you didn't read it again, or even better read the dissent.

He isn't deciding what is moral and what isn't he said that it was the communities job, and don't say it is unconstitutional, because those of you that think morals shouldn't be legislated don't know jack about the constitution.

Stealing is a moral choice so is everything else that exists. You can say "well that is infringing on others" but that is a tired excuse, the fact is that since the constitution was founded we have had moral laws.

The highlighted part is patently false, don't get your information from the press, I posted the source see for yourself. He said that the court had taken up the gay agenda, and he backs that up by expaining why.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
If sex is consentual then it should be legal. Animals and Children can not consent of course.

Morality should not be a conern of the government.

One of the big things Thomas mentioned from the bench during the hearing was how weird it was that Texas outlawed sodomy, but don't have a bestiality statute. But whether the law was stupid *which it was, in the context* has no bearing on it's constitutionality.

[Lewkowski]

Stealing is a moral choice so is everything else that exists. You can say "well that is infringing on others" but that is a tired excuse, the fact is that since the constitution was founded we have had moral laws.

Why don't you look at it this way, If a crime does not have a victim(victimless crime) then it shouldn't be a crime.

And when the constition was founded we had slavery, we had only a few people allowed to vote, ect ect. The fact remains morals laws are BAD.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
If sex is consentual then it should be legal. Animals and Children can not consent of course.

Morality should not be a conern of the government.

How about sheep and New Zealenders? I heard they were pretty friendly to each other.:D

Originally posted by Parmenio
He isn't deciding what is moral and what isn't he said that it was the communities job, and don't say it is unconstitutional, because those of you that think morals shouldn't be legislated don't know jack about the constitution.

Point me to the part of the Constitution that allows the legislating of moral laws. Because I have a part right here which specifically denies them:

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Stealing is a moral choice so is everything else that exists. You can say "well that is infringing on others" but that is a tired excuse, the fact is that since the constitution was founded we have had moral laws.

Morality laws are not merely laws that enforce all morals. They are laws that enforce morals that don't harm anyone. Stealing is not only morally wrong, but you're harming someone by doing it. You do not harm anyone by having sex, regardless of what religious fundamentalists might say.

The highlighted part is patently false, don't get your information from the press, I posted the source see for yourself. He said that the court had taken up the gay agenda, and he backs that up by expaining why.

Replace the word "gay" with "black" and tell me how that sounds.

[Wormboy]

BINGO :up:

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki



Point me to the part of the Constitution that allows the legislating of moral laws. Because I have a part right here which specifically denies them:

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Morality laws are not merely laws that enforce all morals. They are laws that enforce morals that don't harm anyone. Stealing is not only morally wrong, but you're harming someone by doing it. You do not harm anyone by having sex, regardless of what religious fundamentalists might say.



You're seriously going way off again. The two men having sex in their own place are not protected by Amendment IV because their neighbor(the guy with the grudge) called the police and told them something wrong was going on there. So, if you're the police force the first thing you think is not to intrude in someone's house but to make sure everything is ok. This is where Amendment IV cannot apply to them because the police were given a "trouble call" and they had to check things out.

I especially don't appreciate the fact that you're attacking religion again inside a "gay" thread. *edit* I haven't read them, but I'm sure the "moral laws" were there just to protect someone in case they were being victimized.:sour:

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
You're seriously going way off again. The two men having sex in their own place are not protected by Amendment IV because their neighbor(the guy with the grudge) called the police and told them something wrong was going on there. So, if you're the police force the first thing you think is not to intrude in someone's house but to make sure everything is ok. This is where Amendment IV cannot apply to them because the police were given a "trouble call" and they had to check things out.

That's an excuse to bust into someone's bedroom? And even then, that's an excuse to arrest someone? If the people were a male and a female, would they still be arrested?

I especially don't appreciate the fact that you're attacking religion again inside a "gay" thread. *edit* I haven't read them, but I'm sure the "moral laws" were there just to protect someone in case they were being victimized.:sour:

You feel victimized when two homosexuals are having sex inside their house?

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
That's an excuse to bust into someone's bedroom? And even then, that's an excuse to arrest someone? If the people were a male and a female, would they still be arrested?


You feel victimized when two homosexuals are having sex inside their house?

At the time it was an "excuse" because the police didn't know what was truly going on. You can't blame them for thinking that a crime might be occurring when actually it was just two guys getting down to business.

I don't know if the guys were arrested or not, but if they were it's because sadly enough what they were doing at the time was considered against the anti-sodomy laws. You also misunderstood the victimizing part. The reason they had extensive measures for anti-sodomy was because they didn't want someone to be victimized. Not that I was being victimized, smart guy.:rolleyes:

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
At the time it was an "excuse" because the police didn't know what was truly going on. You can't blame them for thinking that a crime might be occurring when actually it was just two guys getting down to business.

I don't know if the guys were arrested or not, but if they were it's because sadly enough what they were doing at the time was considered against the anti-sodomy laws. You also misunderstood the victimizing part. The reason they had extensive measures for anti-sodomy was because they didn't want someone to be victimized. Not that I was being victimized, smart guy.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: The house is empty except for one room. They hear noises from that room, so they automatically assume that a crime is going on. :rolleyes:

How about just sticking to sexual abuse and rape laws?

[Dreadnaught]

Parmenio- if Scalia was really concerned with Stare Decisis he wouldn't try to vote for restrictions on abortion so much.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Parmenio- if Scalia was really concerned with Stare Decisis he wouldn't try to vote for restrictions on abortion so much.

His is committed to Stare Decicis. It doesn't forbid nibbling around the edges, termed as "clarifying the original decision" But I would be completely shocked if he'd ever support overturning Roe v. Wade.

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
His is committed to Stare Decicis. It doesn't forbid nibbling around the edges, termed as "clarifying the original decision" But I would be completely shocked if he'd ever support overturning Roe v. Wade.

So he's the type of judge who'd allow Dread vs. Scott to stay as a matter of tradition?

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
:rolleyes: The house is empty except for one room. They hear noises from that room, so they automatically assume that a crime is going on. :rolleyes:

How about just sticking to sexual abuse and rape laws?

So it was one room. Big deal. I said there was extensive measures for crimes in such cases, but it's not worth it going into.

As for the judges, I'm not too familiar with how they have decided their cases in the past. I'm out.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
So it was one room. Big deal. I said there was extensive measures for crimes in such cases, but it's not worth it going into.

But what's your reasoning for having laws that forbid acts which don't harm anyone?

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Loki
But what's your reasoning for having laws that forbid acts which don't harm anyone?

I wasn't trying to reason that what they were doing was wrong. You're twisting my words again. As much as it was weird what they were doing, so were the laws that were forbidding them to do such a thing. Here's an example:

Two guys: We were just enjoying ourselves, Officer.
Officer: Yes I know, but under certain laws you still have to be arrested for what was going on. I'm sorry.

******

What happened was no one else's business but theirs. What they were doing at the time was illegal, but none of that really matters now. Don't expect me to respond either, I get tired of senseless debating when people like you try to shove your point across.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
I wasn't trying to reason that what they were doing was wrong. You're twisting my words again. As much as it was weird what they were doing, so were the laws that were forbidding them to do such a thing. Here's an example:

Two guys: We were just enjoying ourselves, Officer.
Officer: Yes I know, but under certain laws you still have to be arrested for what was going on. I'm sorry.

The whole point is that laws like this shouldn't be made in the first place. And if they are made, they should be struck down by the courts.

You really think the officers were that civil? Somehow I doubt it.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
But I would be completely shocked if he'd ever support overturning Roe v. Wade.

"The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the "central holding." It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version...

...Roe's mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act. ("If the Constitution guarantees abortion, how can it be bad?" -- not an accurate line of thought, but a natural one.)...

...We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/505scl1.htm

****

Basically, he said in 1992 that Roe itself was not conforming to Stare Decisis and that the court should leave the issue alone. While he doesn't explicitly say that he would overturn it, I imagine he would jump at the chance.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
So he's the type of judge who'd allow Dread vs. Scott to stay as a matter of tradition?

Dredd Scott? Nope, that was handled by Constitutional Amendment, the 13th. Besides Taney's Dredd Scott opinion was confused, fairly incomprehensible, self-contradictory, and just poor precedent. It could never last outside the charged atmosphere the preceded the Civil War He'd probably have let Plessy v. Ferguson stay on, though *and admittedly, the reasoning Warren used to overturn it was weak on the Constitutional side*

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
"The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the "central holding." It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version...

...Roe's mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act. ("If the Constitution guarantees abortion, how can it be bad?" -- not an accurate line of thought, but a natural one.)...

...We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/505scl1.htm

****

Basically, he said in 1992 that Roe itself was not conforming to Stare Decisis and that the court should leave the issue alone. While he doesn't explicitly say that he would overturn it, I imagine he would jump at the chance.

Hmm, I thought I'd read an opinion in another case where he supported nibbling. Must have changed his mind. Incidentally, I don't read that as saying, even implicitly, that he'd overturn it. It reads to me like he's saying the Court should refuse to hear any more abortion cases, and let the laws and constitutional restrictions stand as is. And that IS a proper expression of stare decisis. I was wrong earlier, he WOULD apply it to the whole of Roe v. Wade. If he'd been on the court then, he'd no doubt have gone against, but he wasn't, and now he just wants the courts to dump it *and he's right. Really, SCOTUS should never have heard it in the first place. Like Dredd Scott, the issue is not one the Court is going to be able to solve, and no matter what it does, it's going to raise considerable public outcry against the Court.*

[Dreadnaught]

Generally agreed. Although in 1992 when this came before the court, the majority said "while we may not agree with it now or would not have in 1973, this has been in place for a while now and we won't overturn it because millions of women have grown up with abortion as a factor in their lifes".

They (the majority) then ruled in favor of states making all sorts of laws regarding abortion so long as they weren't creating an "undue burdon". They left alone all but one of the five or six state statues that they were being asked to overturn.

[Hazir]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
His is committed to Stare Decicis. It doesn't forbid nibbling around the edges, termed as "clarifying the original decision" But I would be completely shocked if he'd ever support overturning Roe v. Wade. Basically what you say boils down to ' I don' t agree with this ruling because it doesn' t honour tradition even though that would mean a silly and unjust law will be upheld'.

I think you got your priorities severely messed up buddy.

Unjust legislation should never be upheld on the flimsy basis of tradition. It runs counter to the whole idea of justice and legitimacy.

[Dreadnaught]

That's what Justice Scalia says, Hazir. But --ummm-- I don't think you're going to get LittleFuzzy to particularly agree with him on that one...

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Hazir
Basically what you say boils down to ' I don' t agree with this ruling because it doesn' t honour tradition even though that would mean a silly and unjust law will be upheld'.

I think you got your priorities severely messed up buddy.

Unjust legislation should never be upheld on the flimsy basis of tradition. It runs counter to the whole idea of justice and legitimacy.

Hazir, you may not have known this, but I'm NOT Justice Antonin Scalia. We're talking about him, his views, and his actions, not what I think about cases. I care about stare decisis a great deal less than Scalia does, though not for your view of it.

Stare Decisis exists because the Supreme Court acknowledges the human fallibility of not just former members, but present members. It also recognizes that stability is a very important component of the law, that the law shouldn't keep changing just because ideologies change.

My problem with stare decisis is that yes, if followed too strictly, it allows bad decisions to stand, and that it does not offer sufficient flexibility for real changes in the country and in society *though Scalia would argue that such changes should be made in the form of constitutional amendments, and that the courts it is not the court's place to make judgements for society*

I will note one other thing. Unjust is not for the Supreme Court to decide, the lower courts are eminently capable of making such decisions on their own. The Supreme Court *now, it hasn't always been* is for deciding constitutional issues. Of course, I think you may have a significantly different definition of just and unjust than I do. I would not consider sodomy statutes, or convictions under them, to be unjust. Wrong, yes, but not unjust. How can they be? They're made by the proper authorities, in the proper manner, as part of the legitimate exercise of their duties. Justice can only be referenced in context to laws, either in the form of a moral system or a legal system. Moral systems differ, the world has grown too interconnected to allow them to be the basis for justice. Justice is not a synonym for right or wrong, Hazir. Right or wrong are very general terms, but even they are more precise *and accurate* renditions of your meaning than justice.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Loki
Point me to the part of the Constitution that allows the legislating of moral laws. Because I have a part right here which specifically denies them:

OK, but you will have to start thinking realistically instead of expectationally (is that a word, if not I made it up:) ).

In the dissent Scalia refered to the fact that all 13 colonies at the time of the signing of the constitution had Sodomy laws. Or has something happened that took Sodomy laws from being a moral choice then, as opposed to now?

Fact is that you people that say morals shouldn't be legistated are making an opinion, that is what you want the constitution to say, it isn't what it was meant to say or does. You can say that, and want that, but don't tell me that the constitution forbids it.

Morality laws are not merely laws that enforce all morals. They are laws that enforce morals that don't harm anyone. Stealing is not only morally wrong, but you're harming someone by doing it. You do not harm anyone by having sex, regardless of what religious fundamentalists might say.

Yeah that is the libertarian way of things, and I can respect that. But the problem with that is that libertarians seem to think that the constitution was libertarian too, it wasn't.

Stealing harms someone, and that is supposedly why it is immoral. But if someone wanted to kill themselves, or say have sex with a pig, whether or not if that hurt someone, I would still deem it immoral. We have different views of morality, you can have yours, but you don't know jack about the constitution.

If so tell me where in that document it sets out to define what morals are? :confused:

Replace the word "gay" with "black" and tell me how that sounds.

OK good analogy, legitamize the gay agenda by equating it with the African American one. You can try to do that but they are two completely different scenarios. One has to do with race and one has to do with sexuality, if you are incapable of seeing the differences I pity you.

That is just like the people that like to equate African Americans to the womens movement, they try to pigy back on a completely unrelated issue, so they don't have to have an actual discussion.

Since you didn't read the dissent you have to authority to tell me what it does and doesn't say.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
That's what Justice Scalia says, Hazir. But --ummm-- I don't think you're going to get LittleFuzzy to particularly agree with him on that one...

Actually that is not what he says, you don't even get it.

In order to rule on it it does have to have a tradition in this country, if it doesn't have that tradition and the court blatantly goes contrary to it, then what is the point of rule of law (which a lot of our laws are traditional)? That is a powerful thing, and in order to overturn something it isn't the courts job, that is the legislative branchs.

I know you people don't seem to get the entire point, what you feel is right is right, and the laws of this nation be damned, if you don't like them overrule them. But that isn't the way this country was set up, if that was the case then everyone would try to be a judge instead of a legislator.

In a nut shell he doesn't think it is the courts job to jump in and all of a sudden force the nation to accept something, that should be left up to the legislative branch. (He goes over his abortion thinking in this decision, so read it)

Reguarding abortion, he does say that the court didn't adhear to stare decisis in it's decisions allowing it. Knowing what those two words stand for tell me how it does? Was abortion granted in the constitution, why didn't any of the 13 colonies have rules allowing the practice?

You may disagree with it, but Scalia's whole point is that the court jumped in and tried to solve the problem (which they did), and that should have been left up to the state legislatures, or national legislature.

He also stated some very good points, one is that if it was left up to the states, most would allow abortion, and those that don't wouldn't infringe on someone per say, these people would just have to go to a state that allows it to have one. But his initial point is that the court doesn't jump in and force a decision down the people's throat, that is the legislatures job.

That is what a democracy is people.

[ThorsHammer2]

""OK, but you will have to start thinking realistically instead of expectationally (is that a word, if not I made it up .""
___________________________________________________
Its our expectations(sometimes seen is ideals) that in fact create our reality. You cant seperate the two.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
Its our expectations(sometimes seen is ideals) that in fact create our reality. You cant seperate the two.

True to a point. But by that reasoning, what is the law for? It would be as arbitrary as hell, everyone that wore the robe would be able to say that "that is my expectation, ergo my reality".

[Parmenio]

wish I could delete

[ThorsHammer2]

Originally posted by Parmenio
True to a point. But by that reasoning, what is the law for? It would be as arbitrary as hell, everyone that wore the robe would be able to say that "that is my expectation, ergo my reality".

Because they are so intertwined is why the Constitution tries to keep them seperate. If thats makes sense.:D

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Parmenio
OK good analogy, legitamize the gay agenda by equating it with the African American one. You can try to do that but they are two completely different scenarios. One has to do with race and one has to do with sexuality, if you are incapable of seeing the differences I pity you.

That is just like the people that like to equate African Americans to the womens movement, they try to pigy back on a completely unrelated issue, so they don't have to have an actual discussion.

Since you didn't read the dissent you have to authority to tell me what it does and doesn't say. [/B]

Question parmenio: why are you so automatically abusive of those you disagree with? It's a pattern I have seen over and over with you. IMO it seriously undermines your arguments.

Now on to said arguments.

Here is Loki's logic in making that comparison (if I may be so bold--please correct me if I have misinterpretted you Loki).

1) This is a case of gays being discriminated against just because they are gay and acting on that state of being. Sodomy is the predominant form of gay sex, along with oral sex, which is ALSO illegal in several states, and will doubtlessly be overturned as well by this judgement.

2) Gay isn't a choice, but a state of being. We know that the whole deal is over by the time they are in early childhood. Thus, it is an innate trait.

3) Race is an innate trait as well, as is gender.

4) Thus, if you act against somebody for acting on a gay sexual orientation, you are discriminating against them, because their orientation is innate.

5) And discriminating against one innate trait (orientation) is no different than discriminating against another innate trait (color of skin, or gender)


Thus the comparison of gay and black IN THIS SITUTATION is totally legitimate (and I don't believe their was any "Agenda" mentioned here, except by Scalia). Obviously gays and blacks aren't the same thing. He just meant one innate trait is much like the other when it comes to discrimination. Thus, gays and blacks share a factor: they are both discriminated against because of an innate trait. Note that by this definition, one need not be in a majority to discriminate against. So under certain circumstances, straight white males could be discriminated against (and I'm sure this happens rarely)


In fact, I think that the key to the act of "discrimination" revolves around the concept of "innate." If a trait is NOT innate, like say, your taste in comedy, then it's just opinion. So saying "I hate your taste in comedy" isn't discrimination, because taste in comedy isn't something you were born with, and isn't an innate group label. Thus, it is not discrimination, but just disagreement. Nobody condemns disagreement, as long as it is done civilly. :D

Race is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their race is discrimination (or to use strongers words for it, bigotry or racism).

Gender is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their gender is discrimination (or to use stronger words for it, bigotry or sexism).

Sexual orientation is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their sexual orientation is discrimination (or to use stronger words for it, bigotry, homophobia or gay-bashing).

A pretty straightforward concept, one you get down to it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Question parmenio: why are you so automatically abusive of those you disagree with? It's a pattern I have seen over and over with you. IMO it seriously undermines your arguments.

Parm's post *and other posts of his* have never struck me as particularly abusive *there are a couple of exceptions, but all of us lose our temper and still post, at times* Certainly, he's no more abusive than Chronus, Loki, or you.


B]Thus the comparison of gay and black IN THIS SITUTATION is totally legitimate (and I don't believe their was any "Agenda" mentioned here, except by Scalia). [/B]

Wormboy, we DO have an agenda, and we've been organizing to achieve it for years. Civil rights and educating people are at the top of it.

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Wormboy, we DO have an agenda, and we've been organizing to achieve it for years. Civil rights and educating people are at the top of it.
Bravo! :up:

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Parm's post *and other posts of his* have never struck me as particularly abusive *there are a couple of exceptions, but all of us lose our temper and still post, at times* Certainly, he's no more abusive than Chronus, Loki, or you.

All of these (me included) usually refrain from being obnoxious or condescending unless provoked. parmenio comes out of the gate being mean sometimes. He's certainly flamed me multiple times when I didn't even look at him crosseyed.

Wormboy, we DO have an agenda, and we've been organizing to achieve it for years. Civil rights and educating people are at the top of it.

No, some people have agendas. Some people (like me) just want to see the Bill of Rights and Constitution upheld. Consequently, I think it's great that gays are getting some court rulings going their way--it's not like they are getting any special rights. I have no underlying agenda re: homosexuality (nor do I think do most of the people on this forum), just an abiding faith in the necessaity and power of civil liberties.

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Wormboy

1) This is a case of gays being discriminated against just because they are gay and acting on that state of being. Sodomy is the predominant form of gay sex, along with oral sex, which is ALSO illegal in several states, and will doubtlessly be overturned as well by this judgement.

2) Gay isn't a choice, but a state of being. We know that the whole deal is over by the time they are in early childhood. Thus, it is an innate trait.

3) Race is an innate trait as well, as is gender.

4) Thus, if you act against somebody for acting on a gay sexual orientation, you are discriminating against them, because their orientation is innate.

5) And discriminating against one innate trait (orientation) is no different than discriminating against another innate trait (color of skin, or gender)


Race is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their race is discrimination (or to use strongers words for it, bigotry or racism).

Gender is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their gender is discrimination (or to use stronger words for it, bigotry or sexism).

Sexual orientation is innate. So disliking somebody or mistreating them because of their sexual orientation is discrimination (or to use stronger words for it, bigotry, homophobia or gay-bashing).

A pretty straightforward concept, one you get down to it.

Wrong. Sexual orientation is not so much innate as color is.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/glbt_science.html

1. We have no laws or anything in the Constitution(with amendments) that says sexual orientation is protected. Last I checked the issue of weight control also might have been considered to be added to the discrimination list, but I haven't seen any such action taking place.

2. I have one article, but I can get more. DNA and genes only play a part of it in a person's orientation. The environment of that person plays a bigger part in it.

3. No comment

4. Wrong(said before)

5. Wrong. It's not discrimination when two men were arrested for going against an anti-sodomy law. Once we start taking down our own order(laws) we come to think of what governs us: The people or the people who just want control over others in order to fabricate the idea of equality.


I think a lot of people would like to see the Bill of Rights used correctly, Wormboy, but as we can see there's too many differentiations on what rights we have and what we think we can have.

[Hazir]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Hazir, you may not have known this, but I'm NOT Justice Antonin Scalia. We're talking about him, his views, and his actions, not what I think about cases. I care about stare decisis a great deal less than Scalia does, though not for your view of it.

Stare Decisis exists because the Supreme Court acknowledges the human fallibility of not just former members, but present members. It also recognizes that stability is a very important component of the law, that the law shouldn't keep changing just because ideologies change.

My problem with stare decisis is that yes, if followed too strictly, it allows bad decisions to stand, and that it does not offer sufficient flexibility for real changes in the country and in society *though Scalia would argue that such changes should be made in the form of constitutional amendments, and that the courts it is not the court's place to make judgements for society*

I will note one other thing. Unjust is not for the Supreme Court to decide, the lower courts are eminently capable of making such decisions on their own. The Supreme Court *now, it hasn't always been* is for deciding constitutional issues. Of course, I think you may have a significantly different definition of just and unjust than I do. I would not consider sodomy statutes, or convictions under them, to be unjust. Wrong, yes, but not unjust. How can they be? They're made by the proper authorities, in the proper manner, as part of the legitimate exercise of their duties. Justice can only be referenced in context to laws, either in the form of a moral system or a legal system. Moral systems differ, the world has grown too interconnected to allow them to be the basis for justice. Justice is not a synonym for right or wrong, Hazir. Right or wrong are very general terms, but even they are more precise *and accurate* renditions of your meaning than justice. It may come as a surprise to you, but I never was under the impression that I was talking to a Supreme Court Justice in this forum. However, you take his position so I react to the arguments rather than to the person.

Stability is a value not to be underestimated, IF it serves the purposes of what is just and what is legitimate. Stability serving the purposes of suppression and unjustice however is the worst thing I could think of. And that is why I wholeheartedly disagree with your defense of the minority position, because they put legality in front of legitimacy.

The argument that it is not for the Supreme Court to rule on what is 'just' also fails because it rests on the premise that legislation can be all-encompassing and unfallable. Which we all know not to be true. Besides the Constitution more general principles are to be upheld for a society to secure 'Justice for all'.

The fact that a law has been passed by the proper authorities is not necessarily one of those principles; the Neurenberg Laws were passed by the proper authorities too.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
Wrong. Sexual orientation is not so much innate as color is.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/glbt_science.html

www.adherents.com A religious webpage. Hmm :rolleyes:

Furthermore, it is AN EDITORIAL written in response to an earlier article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Editorials are generally not considered valid sources on this forum, nor are sites with a clear agenda (like the one you link to). Generally organizations with a history of at least SOME objectivity are recommended: Major news organizations, academic journals, etc.

Authors of your "source"

1) A. Dean Byrd, PhD. Professor of Psychology at Brigham Young University. 4 professional publications in journals: 1 meta-analysis, 1 review, 1 small study, 1 commentary, all in the obscure journal "Psychology Reports"

A rebuttal of one of Byrd's articles from Idaho State University: http://www.isu.edu/~schorona/critique.htm


2) Shirley E Cox, DSW (Doctor of Social Work) Brigham Young University. No articles published on homosexuality in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Cox is a SOCIAL WORKER. Nuf said about her professional credentials on genetics and human development.


3) Jeffrey W. Robinson, PhD. Psychotherapist in Orem, Utah. No articles published on homosexuality in peer reviewed journals. Does marriage and family therapy. :rolleyes: Once again: Nuf said about professional credentials on genetics and human development. (as an aside, this is my wife's specialty as well, and she can never keep DNA, RNA and proteins straight)

Anybody notice a pattern here? Psychologists at BYU? NOW THERE'S AN UNBIASED SOURCE FOR YOU! :haha:


Hmm, I'm willing to put my GENETICS PhD from University of Washington and GENETICS postdoc at UC Berkeley on the table against their credentials when talking about the GENETICS of homosexuality. :D

They talk about HAmer's work on X-linkage of a homosexuality gene, and the quotes are TOTALLY taken out of context, as is the research that supposedly"disproves" Hamer's work. They totally fail to adequately address the Twim studies, which are far and away the best research method for looking at genetics in behavior.

The standard caveats expressed by conscientious scientists are distorted into major criticisms of work.

I won't go into the rest of it (the rebuttal to Boyd I listed did so adequately, and plenty of others can be found online by searching for his name and "homosexuality). It's standard distortions and statements taken out of context. Aside from the subject matter, the way truth is trampled is reminiscent of religious "treatises" I have read "disproving" Natural Selection and Evolution "using the biologist's own science." :rolleyes: Yeah, if you are dishonest, you can misquote and distort results to prove ANYTHING. It doesn't mean that it's worth crap though.


Sorry, if I seem rude, but I think the serious legitimacy problem your "Source" faces is pretty offensive to me and the people on the forum. I view posting such mendacious "sources" as an affront to our intelligence and credulity.

1. We have no laws or anything in the Constitution(with amendments) that says sexual orientation is protected.

Hmm, check the part under "All men are created equal" and continue from there. Last I checked the right for HETEROSEXUALS to marry is not explicitly guaranteed in the constitution either. :rolleyes:

Last I checked the issue of weight control also might have been considered to be added to the discrimination list, but I haven't seen any such action taking place.

Fortunately nobody has proposed banning fat people from eating or getting married, last I checked. When they do, I guarantee you that it will fail in the courts.

2. I have one article, but I can get more. DNA and genes only play a part of it in a person's orientation. The environment of that person plays a bigger part in it.

I'm sure you can find an endless supply of similarly biased religious rants. Go right ahead. You think they will convince us?

The twin studies (the gold standard for nature vs nurture) suggest that about 50% of homosexual behavior is pure genetics. The psychological studies indicate that the rest is completely determined before age 5, but is of some unknown environmental cause. Please note that age 5 is the earliest time of sexual ideation, but is LONG before any overt sexuality is expressed.

Is this area of genetics and psychology still in flux? Absolutely. Are the twin studies and psychology studies rock solid? Yup. But what we don't have is precise mechanisms, especially the moderate input of some environmental factor.

Please note that the color of your skin is not 100% genetic. People with very dark skin can still get darker upon expusure to the sun. Thus by these same tests skin color falls way short of 100% in the twin studies. It's worth noting that even eye color is only 98% concordant in twin studies (due to spontaneous somatic mutations. Questions? See David Bowie's eyes)

5. Wrong. It's not discrimination when two men were arrested for going against an anti-sodomy law. Once we start taking down our own order(laws) we come to think of what governs us: The people or the people who just want control over others in order to fabricate the idea of equality.

Actually, you have hit on the precise ole of the Supreme Court. They interpret the constitutionality of federal, state and local laws. THAT IS THEIR ONLY ROLE. So far from "taking down our own order(laws)," the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. You may not like what they arrive at, and I don't always either, but continual reviewing of the nation's law through the lense of the constitution is THEIR ONLY REASON FOR BEING.

Are they capable of error? Of course, all humans are, as well as all previous SC justices. Does our law evolve as our society evolves? Of a certainty. Have the courts acted to restrict legislated racism, sexism etc etc etc? Absolutely. Note that each of these was a broader interpretation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to include groups that were orignally intentionally excluded from "all men are created equal." First we added women, as an acknowledgement that they, too, are human. Then we added racial minorities. Now we are in the process of adding sexual identity minorities. Just another group that has been excluded.


I think a lot of people would like to see the Bill of Rights used correctly, Wormboy, but as we can see there's too many differentiations on what rights we have and what we think we can have.

Your sentence is very difficult to parse, Steve_Shapiro. But let's look at a bunch of things that we assume are covered by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but are not explicitly stated:
1) The right of unmarried straights to have sex out of wedlock
2) the right of the same to have sex in a variety of fun and fabulous styles
3) The right of a racially mixed couple to have sex
5) The right of all of these people to do so as frequently and however they want, as long as they do so in private (also liberally including hotel rooms, the backs of vans, and stretch limos with shaded windows).
5) The right of any of these folks to reproduce, married or not.
6) The right of any of these folks to marry.
7) The right of these folks to breed (yes, even if they are gay, fertilization technology being what it is)

We assume all of these are true under various parts of the constitution. None are explicitly stated, to my knowledge. So why do we arbitrarily decide that "hey, gays can't have sex, and the SURE can't marry." Since they are citizens of the country just like any other, can't they also do precisely as they please as long as they don't infringe on anybody else's rights? The right of Americans to do their own business seems to be the unifying message from the SC through history.

But you seem to be hung up about two men or two women doing it just like everybody else does. Guess what? The founding fathers placed no such restrictions on peoples' personal lives. That has only been done through bigotted local politics (and only in 13/50 states)

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Hazir
It may come as a surprise to you, but I never was under the impression that I was talking to a Supreme Court Justice in this forum. However, you take his position so I react to the arguments rather than to the person.

Stability is a value not to be underestimated, IF it serves the purposes of what is just and what is legitimate. Stability serving the purposes of suppression and unjustice however is the worst thing I could think of. And that is why I wholeheartedly disagree with your defense of the minority position, because they put legality in front of legitimacy.

The argument that it is not for the Supreme Court to rule on what is 'just' also fails because it rests on the premise that legislation can be all-encompassing and unfallable. Which we all know not to be true. Besides the Constitution more general principles are to be upheld for a society to secure 'Justice for all'.

The fact that a law has been passed by the proper authorities is not necessarily one of those principles; the Neurenberg Laws were passed by the proper authorities too.

Hazir, you're ****ing nuts. I have NEVER defended Scalia's position, and I disagree with it. IFor what possible reason would I defend Scalia's dissent? 'm gay myself, I support the decision in Lawrence v. Texas *though there are probably a few passages in the majority opinion I disagree with. That's par for most decisions* All I was doing was explaining the rationale. I'm dropping this discussion, that you could misread me so profoundly does not auger well for any further discussion of the US Constitution or constitutional theory with you.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Wormboy

Actually, you have hit on the precise ole of the Supreme Court. They interpret the constitutionality of federal, state and local laws. THAT IS THEIR ONLY ROLE. So far from "taking down our own order(laws)," the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. You may not like what they arrive at, and I don't always either, but continual reviewing of the nation's law through the lense of the constitution is THEIR ONLY REASON FOR BEING.

Actually, that's not true *in fact, judicial review is the only function of the court not explicitly listed in the Constitution* They also have sole jurisdiction over cases between states, between states and the federal government, and over cases between the US and other countries, etc.

Article 3, Section 2, US Constitution

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Hazir]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Hazir, you're ****ing nuts. I have NEVER defended Scalia's position, and I disagree with it. IFor what possible reason would I defend Scalia's dissent? 'm gay myself, I support the decision in Lawrence v. Texas *though there are probably a few passages in the majority opinion I disagree with. That's par for most decisions* All I was doing was explaining the rationale. I'm dropping this discussion, that you could misread me so profoundly does not auger well for any further discussion of the US Constitution or constitutional theory with you. :) The risks of being rushed by pay-per-minute dial up.

I did mistake your explanation for his rationale for a defense of his position. I am aware of your being gay, but that doesn't necessarily include being sane. ;)

[Wormboy]

Hmm, very interesting. Boy, was I wrong! :D I should probably give the constitution another read, since I think it was over 16 years ago when I read it :)

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Wormboy
snip


Funny how you choose your own "sources", but say that mine aren't credible. Then you go on to say how your degrees account for so much of your knowledge, yet I have never seen you explain anything before about this. You don't even research sexual orientation or get paid of the sort to be near it.:rolleyes:

Last I checked, the Constitution never fully guaranteed any minority full rights considering it was written mostly by aristocratic white men.:rolleyes: :p

What I'm trying to get at is that we aren't equal as you would like it to be no matter what. Many "professional" individuals such as doctors, and psychologists disagree on many things. Wow this thread is going nowhere just like all the others.:sour:

[Moridin00]

I thought the great american ideal was that the 'ppl forged the constitution'.

Why are you enslaved to the constitutional law when you can create it yourself (i.e. petition)? :weird:

That may sound idealistic, but the country is what you common folks (meant in the nicest way of course :)) make it, surely?

[Loki]

It takes 2/3 of the votes in both Houses of Congress and the ratification by 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment. Changing the Constitution is an incredibly difficult process, which has only been accomplished 17 times since the signing of the Constitution. To get change, you have to rely on courts to intrepret the Constitution in a way conductive to change.

Steve, of course the Constitution did not give minorities full of rights. :confused: Blacks were still slaves and women didn't get to vote until over a century later.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
Funny how you choose your own "sources", but say that mine aren't credible. Then you go on to say how your degrees account for so much of your knowledge, yet I have never seen you explain anything before about this. You don't even research sexual orientation or get paid of the sort to be near it.:rolleyes:

Last I checked, the Constitution never fully guaranteed any minority full rights considering it was written mostly by aristocratic white men.:rolleyes: :p

What I'm trying to get at is that we aren't equal as you would like it to be no matter what. Many "professional" individuals such as doctors, and psychologists disagree on many things. Wow this thread is going nowhere just like all the others.:sour:

Steve, your "Source" was a religious tract written by psychologists (2 of the 3 of which have NO research publications, and the third only a paltry ONE primary research article, and that in an archival jounral!), and I am a professional geneticist, discussing the role of genetics in homosexuality.

I am not a constitutional lawyer, and my knowledge of politics is largely vicarious. Thus I usually try to express things differently. I know what I am talking about in my profession, I *think* I know what I am talking about in other areas, but sometimes don't :D

At least when I made a mistake, I can say "whoops, I flubbed it." When you post a garbage source from unqualified people with a pre-existing agenda on the topic, you don't acknowledge a thing.

Which is these is responsible forum activity?

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Loki
Steve, of course the Constitution did not give minorities full of rights. :confused: Blacks were still slaves and women didn't get to vote until over a century later.

As I pointed out. Thus, the federal and state legislators, with the SC looking over their shoulder, have gradually redirected the body of law and the INTERPRETATION of that law toward granting rights to blacks and women. This includes consitutional amendments, BTW, but not always (for example, see the civil rights act and the voting rights act from the early 60s.)

These actions have granted equal rights to people who had previously been denied that status for arbitrary reasons. It appears the US is finally starting to do that homosexuals as well.

You, Steve, are in the unenviable position are arguing against all of the solid science that shows that homosexuality is mostly innate, and arguing against the granting of equal rights to a sub-population of the US based on their innate state. Tough points to argue, IMO.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
It takes 2/3 of the votes in both Houses of Congress and the ratification by 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment. Changing the Constitution is an incredibly difficult process, which has only been accomplished 17 times since the signing of the Constitution. To get change, you have to rely on courts to intrepret the Constitution in a way conductive to change.

Steve, of course the Constitution did not give minorities full of rights. :confused: Blacks were still slaves and women didn't get to vote until over a century later.

Umm, Loki, the Bill of Rights was passed after the Constitution was signed, and after it was ratified *do remember, it was signed at the end of the Convention, not later* :) So actually, there have been 27 amendments since it was signed, and since it was ratified.

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Umm, Loki, the Bill of Rights was passed after the Constitution was signed, and after it was ratified *do remember, it was signed at the end of the Convention, not later* :) So actually, there have been 27 amendments since it was signed, and since it was ratified.

I meant ratified. :p Didn't some of the states refuse to sign the Constitution until there was a Bill of Rights, or were they promised the Bill of Rights in the near future and they signed before the Bill of Rights passed? My memory is a little fuzzy on this issue. ;)

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
I meant ratified. :p Didn't some of the states refuse to sign the Constitution until there was a Bill of Rights, or were they promised the Bill of Rights in the near future and they signed before the Bill of Rights passed? My memory is a little fuzzy on this issue. ;)

Yes, several states insisted on a Bill of Rights. Their ratifications were technically provisional, pursuant to that demand being met. Their ratifications still came before the Bill of Rights in the time-line *by at least a year or two, as I recall*

[Gray Fox]

He also stated some very good points, one is that if it was left up to the states, most would allow abortion, and those that don't wouldn't infringe on someone per say, these people would just have to go to a state that allows it to have one. But his initial point is that the court doesn't jump in and force a decision down the people's throat, that is the legislatures job.

That is what a democracy is people.



I can tell you learned what you learned about the United State's form of government from a middle school social studies book. Let me do a bit of deprogramming here:

The United States is not a democracy. It is, by it's definition, a constitutional federal republic.

A republic is a form of government where democracy does have a role, but there are checks and balances against popular will. As much as the three branches of government acts as a check and balance against each other, the US Constitution and it's amendments, including the 9th amendment (which guarantees a right to privacy in an unenumerated fashion) acts as a check and balance against the passions and desires of the majority.

Back in World War 2, Japanese-Americans, a lot of them US Citizens, were interred at US government run camps in the west, because they believed that they were all sleepers and had to be contained. They sued, and the US Supreme Court ruled against them, because FDR stacked the court with government supporters. The interments were violations of the constitution, but it reflected the democractic popular will that the Japanese-Americans had their loyalties elsewhere than their new home country.

You ask that I should ask the legislature to repeal a law which criminalizes the only form of sexual intimacy that I can experience with another. Unlikely in the state of Texas, where conservatives rule the government and believe primarily that homosexuals are evil people, just like the Legislature of Alabama and many other southern states in the 1950's. The federal courts had to do the work in terms of telling the states "You cannot violate people's civil rights", because the Legislature, the governor, and even the courts of the states, were subject to democratic vote.

Benjamin Franklin, mindful of Greek history, once said that the last act of a democracy is to elect a dictator. The constitution of the United States acts as a shield against this, because if a dictator does take over the Presidency, and starts having his enemies assasinated, and ripping up the constitution into shreds, then the people of this country would be justified to taking up arms against such illegal and unconstitutional government. But if the US was only a representative democracy, there would be no recourse for the minority who voted against such dictator, who would likely be hounded and arrested. Think it can't happen? Ask the opponents of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

[Loki]

The United States is a democracy. It is also a federal republic, and many other things which address different parts of America's structure. You are referring to America not being a direct democracy, which it obviously isn't.

Nor does democracy necessarily mean majority rule.

[Gray Fox]

The United States is a democracy. It is also a federal republic, and many other things which address different parts of America's structure. You are referring to America not being a direct democracy, which it obviously isn't.

I was talking about Representative Democracy.


Nor does democracy necessarily mean majority rule.

Yes it does, by it's very definition. If a majority of an elected body says "All people of a certain minority are to be executed summarily", then that is what will occur. The courts of such a representative democracy would not be able to overturn the elected body in that decision. That is the way the law is in the United Kingdom. Whatever Parliament decides, it is the common law of the country once passed. There is only one level of law in such a country.

The United States is a federal REPUBLIC. Meaning that there is a check and balance against the passions of the elected bodies, that being the Constitution of the United States. In the US, there are two levels of law: Constitutional and legal. Constitutional supersedes legal. Legal violates constitutional, say the "execution law" that I suggested in the above paragraph, the courts can put an injunction against it, and the US Supreme Court would eventually shut it down entirely by throwing out the law.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Gray Fox

Back in World War 2, Japanese-Americans, a lot of them US Citizens, were interred at US government run camps in the west, because they believed that they were all sleepers and had to be contained. They sued, and the US Supreme Court ruled against them, because FDR stacked the court with government supporters. The interments were violations of the constitution, but it reflected the democractic popular will that the Japanese-Americans had their loyalties elsewhere than their new home country.


It wasn't because Roosevelt stacked the Court. It was because the Court almost always considers itself unqualified to go against the government on national security during a war. Hell, SCOTUS didn't even move against the suspension of habeus corpus *which is plainly and explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution* until AFTER the Civil War had ended.

[Loki]

America is both a federal republic and a democracy. There are many types of republics, just like there are many forms of democracies. America is more or less a liberal democracy. That being a democracy where the state recognizes society as a group of diverse citizens acting as both individuals and groups. The goal of the state is to protect these groups from the state and from other groups. I think America meets this definition almost as well as any other Western country.

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Steve, your "Source" was a religious tract written by psychologists (2 of the 3 of which have NO research publications, and the third only a paltry ONE primary research article, and that in an archival jounral!), and I am a professional geneticist, discussing the role of genetics in homosexuality.

At least when I made a mistake, I can say "whoops, I flubbed it." When you post a garbage source from unqualified people with a pre-existing agenda on the topic, you don't acknowledge a thing.

Which is these is responsible forum activity?

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/science.htm

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/bailey-pillard.html

repost of the same utah people only under a different article- http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.html


There happy? Don't even tell me what responsible activity is when you can't even control your own behavior.


Originally posted by Wormboy

You, Steve, are in the unenviable position are arguing against all of the solid science that shows that homosexuality is mostly innate, and arguing against the granting of equal rights to a sub-population of the US based on their innate state. Tough points to argue, IMO.

Funny how I actually made sure that I didn't go too much into the "religious" websites that you insulted me on. I didn't say that gay people couldn't have rights. I said that because of the way society acts, homosexuals aren't treated as fairly. They can still vote, teach, drive cars, eat in restaurants, work, and do a lot of things. :sour:

I don't care what tough pointers you have, you still can't make the majority of people think the same way as you.:sour: Actually this applies towards Loki too, but that is a different issue altogether.

I'm going to bed.:D

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/science.htm


Religious site (though the try their damndest to hide it)


http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/divide.htm#graph

"A&B" has to do with the morality and/or Creator's intent for same-gender relationships, and D&E has to do with the response and/or implementation of those convictions (whether A or B).

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/divide.htm


""The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors." The quote is from a paper by NARTH which quotes from researchers in the field, researchers from both sides of the divide."

Who is NARTH? "National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality" Hmm, maybe a legit professional organization, but the "therapy" part made me wonder....

I looked thru their "Is homosexuality genetic" part, and interestingly, I found no section on the most relevant data: the twin studies. What I did find was oblique references to it, of this sort: "These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.{1} "

Undeniably true, but ignores the fact that the twin studies showed homosexuality to be 50% concordant (skin color is around 80%, eye color 98%). Does that mean some is environmental? Sure. Does it mean more is genetic? yes.

Why don't they address this point more completely, since it is the most relevant data of all? Hmm

I need to dig further....

Under "About Narth"
"What we offer"
First sentence: "NARTH's primary goal is to make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change."

Well, there you have it. An organization of psychologists and laypeople who want to "change" homosexuals back. We've all heard a lot about this... I wonder if they are associated with the torture folks. I believe they are (didn't you mention NARTH Little Fuzzy?)

Just in case you doubt me, from the same section:
"An international referral service of licensed therapists offering sexual reorientation treatment in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. "

What do people think about NARTH?
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1847/narth.htm
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

(mind you, this is editorialization from the other side, but since our friend is sufficiently dishonest to try to foist off religious organization as real scientists, and give us editorials as "proof", why not give him some of his own medicine?)

"Nicolosi describes gay partnerships as bedeviled by cheating, teasing, fights, jealousy, rage, suspicion, envy, restlessness, and disappointment. Nicolosi writes, ‘Homosexual relationships are so characteristically volatile because the homosexual hates what he loves.’ " - Joseph Nicolosi, head of NARTH and one of the religious right's top two ex-gay psychiatrists in the country, from NARTH's Web site,

"This is ultimately about the protection of America's youth from such groups as NAMBLA and militant homosexuals who seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of fourteen (as in Hawaii, 1993) or sixteen (as in England, 1994). They have told us, ‘We're here. We're Queer. And we are coming after your children.’ How much more do we need to know?" - Charles Socarides, on the board of NARTH and the other top ex-gay psychiatrist, from NARTH's Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/socarides.html

"a form of national ‘brainwashing’ has been employed by the propagandists of the homosexual movement." - Charles Socarides, on the board of NARTH and the other top ex-gay psychiatrist, from NARTH's Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/socarides.html
"homosexual movement. . . . is strikingly similar in the propaganda of both movements: communistic totalism and homosexual totalism. . . . such an atmosphere is uncomfortably reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. " - Charles Socarides, on the board of NARTH and the other top ex-gay psychiatrist, from NARTH's Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/socarides.html

Well, so much for NARTH, and any "Scientific" quotes from them :rolleyes:

back to the original religious site, bridges-across.org: In their "Science" section:

The American Psychiatric Association's Fact Sheet (a PDF file) on Gay Lesbian Bisexual issues http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf
"All major professional mental heath organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder" ... Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime" ... "Noone knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality... to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse."

[Note: they selectively use an APA quote that says no "specific biological etiology" for homosexuality. Etiology means "cause" or "origin." This is exactly like I said, no mechanism is known. No why do you think they don't mention the twin studies? Because, while we don't know the mechanism, we do know that a large part of homosexuality is completely genetic, though we have no specific genes in hand. As an aside, most behavior is probably polygenic, and we have no specific mechanisms for ANY of it yet. Expecting more from something as complex as homosexuality is ridiculous.]

Then we get to "Sexual conversion therapy" with some more selective quoting from the APA, and some referrals to religious sites (plus more NARTH quotes)

Well, the science is incredibly sparse, and just as biased as your unqualified psychologists' editorial. Furthermore, we hear nothing of quotes from Geneticists, even though the primary argument is genetics. I also found that I could find no names associated with who is running the website. Board of directors? Anybody we can investigate? NAh, of course not.

This site has numerous religious links, few non-religious links. I recommend the discerning audience going to the homepage http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/index.htm and seeing what you think. My opinion is that it is a religious page for the conversion of homosexuals. There is no recognition of the relevant science out there, and thus no attempt at objectivity.

So while they hide it much better, they are still religious zealots with a mission re homosexuality.

NICE SOURCE! :D :up:



Next:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/bailey-pillard.html

Hmm, an op-ed piece from the NYTimes. What did I tell you about these? But at least these authors address the genetics angle, citing 52% concordance for homosexuality (reminder: skins color is around 80%, eye color at 98%).
The authors:
"Michael Bailey is assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Richard Pillard is associate professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine."

I'm more likely to buy a message from highly qualified people at these institutions. Note that they present evidence that was IGNORED by the BYU. Funny, eh?




Next:
repost of the same utah people only under a different article- http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

I don't see why revisit this folks. But now you have associated them with NARTH, which is pretty clearly a religious anti-homosexuality group. Furthmore, NARTH is the group that advocates out and out torture for aversive "therapy" for homosexuality. There's an enlightned group for ya :up:

So I decline to even read the text. I've already shown that the authors have no creditability on this subject.




Next:
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html


CLosing paragraph: "The question of whether homosexuality is an innate quality or a choice is at best still up in the air. It would seem that a greater part of the scientific community is beginning to believe that homosexuality is an innate quality, however, others cite increased pressure on the scientific community from special interest groups as well as pressure from homosexual doctors and researchers within the scientific community. More research will have to be made before many will believe that homosexuality is something that many are simply born with. "

I find this weird. Quotes lots of psychologists, yet doesn't spend any time on the twin studies (WTF is up with psychologists anyway? If we are talking about the biological basis of homosexuality, should we use a biological test? And what better than twin studies, which is STILL far and away the best measuremnet of how much of a process is genetic)

The weirdest thing is they act as if it must be all or nothing, an option in the NAture/Nurture debate which has been discredited since the early 70s. It's pretty clear that almost ALL behavior is at least somewhat genetic, and some quite a bit. We have NO evidence that any single behavior is 100% genetic. Environment seeems to play significant role in all, including homosexuality.

Most think the best way of looking at the issue is this: predisposition. YOur genetic background PREDISPOSES you to behave certain ways, but there is still some envirnmental control and free-will. This is a generalization, of course, and the degree of concordance in twin studies would constitute a VERY STRONG predisposition. Also, the sexual ideation of young children suggests that whatever additional events occur (i.e. environmental input) it occurs by a very early age--long before any overt sexuality is present.

What is the source of this page? No authors listed (I hate when they do that), but it is University of Plymouth, in England. I know nothing about this institution. http://plym.ac.uk http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk



Next:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.html

Actually, this is an excellent source that illustrates an important point. Hamer's work is inconclusive, because it couldn't be reproduced by another study. I read an article about this exact controversy in Scientific American about a year ago (linkage not available without SciAm subscription). They aren't sure about the source of the discrepancy, though there are two obvious candidates: 1) It could be that Hamer's evidence is just wrong, as was the case for a very famous study on Bipolar disorder several years ago. 2) On the other hand, the study groups and methods were quite different, including the definitions of homosexuality. Since psychologists generally consider sexual orientationa spectrum, not a on/off proposition, the precise definition of homosexuality in your study group is critical. Muy understandijng was that Rice's was much more liberal, and thus could include many who are just bisexual.

So the jury is still out.

Does this affect our estimation of how genetic homosexuality is? Not at all. The twin studies (like I've said many times) are the gold standard of behavioral genetics, and the answer there is unambiguous. Note that I have never used Hamer's study as evidence that homosexuality is innate. I rely on the twin studies, which are unassailable (and have been reproduced)

So why the discrepancy? Simple. All complex behaviors that have been studied thus far are polygenic, AND, precise diagnosis is extremely difficult, due to so many other complicating behaviors.

A good example is the Bipolar one we used before. Some scientists claimed they found some linkage to a specific chromosome region for bipolar. But, it turns out it was probably sampling error: they collected data until they got a statistically significant value (a cardinal sin in genetics). It's important to note that this particular error was NOT done in Hamer's study, but that doesn't rule out your basic statistical error or differences in study methods (could be either, IMO).

But Bipolar is clearly VERY stroingly influenced by genetics (about the same as homosexuality, actually). Turns out bipolar is polygenic--that is, many different genes are involved in determining the trait. Thus, genetic mapping is useless, because it is only do-able if there are only one or two primary genes (like hereditary breast cancer disposition, which has two genes, BRCA1 and 2). Turns out that there are at least 8 genes involved in bipolar, and they think even more will be uncovered. If you have a mutation in one or even two of these genes, no trouble (though note that people with two mutations shouldn't take SSRIs like Prozac and friends). Mutations in any three makes you almost certain to have bipolar in some form. Four will make you have full-blown bipolar.

Plus, there is some environmental input (indicated by variability within same genotypes and the twin studies) that is totally unclear.

It is likely that homosexuality (and most other behaviors) is the same. In my professional estimation, it is likely that homosexuality is like bipolar, and will be do to variability in several genes. I suspect that Hamer's research was indeed wrong, just like the bipolar (plus, it should be noted that many scientists said that about Hamer's work at the get-go, even when it hadn't failed the reproducibility test yet.

Last thing on this ABC news article:
“This bascially confirms what we’ve always known, that homosexuality is not inborn.”
Yvette Cantu, Family Research Council

Now see, this is exactly the sort of biased spin that always happens around controversial areas of science. The scientists themselves are very responsible about interpretations, but the spin doctors immediately go to work. This comment is ABSOLUTELY DEAD WRONG. This study contradicting Hamer's shows no such thing. As I said, there is a reasonable possibility that both are right, due to different sampling methods, but more likely Hamer is indeed wrong , and that homosexuality is polygenic (which, after the bipolar thing, is what all the geneticists were predicting anyway).

Just to be fair, when Hamer's work first came out, I remember some gay advocacy groups proclaiming: "This proves that homosexuality is genetically based!" Like I said about the other quote: it does nothing of the sort. The large (but not absolute) genetic contribution to homosexuality was nailed down without a shadow of a doubt years before by the twin studies.


Since I've made so much noise about the twin studies, allow me to present linkage (both of these links actually include ALL of the biological arguments, including further linkage):

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html



There happy? Don't even tell me what responsible activity is when you can't even control your own behavior.

I can't imagine what you are referring to by saying "I can't control my own behavior." Care to enlighten me?

You posted a tract that was garbage for the following reasons:
1) an editorial in a newspaper, not a factual source
2) Written by 3 faculty at a religious institution (BYU) with a STRONG bias on research that impinges on any area of religion.
3) All three are psychologists, even though we are talking about the BIOLOGICAL basis of homosexuality
4) Two of the three have NO research publications in journals. The third has one small primary research article in an archival journal. In other words, you experts are NOT. Sure, I bet you can find one or two real faculty someplace who also support this position, but the majority of professionals that study this stuff are covinced by the gold standard of nature/nurture: the twin studies.
5) The "facts' they presented were totally biased. Quotes taken out of context or only selectively quoted, misinterpretation of data, distorting statistics, misinterpreting the meaning of "no mechanism," and perhaps most egregious, ignoring the most relevant data of all.

In all, your source isn't worth the space it takes on the original server and this forum, at least with regards to the world of scientific discourse. I WILL accept that it is a perfect example of distortion of science to serve a political agenda, and as such was useful for us to see. Was this your intent? If so, I must apologize.




As for your sources on this post, you are all over the map. Some of them are clearly from religious extremist groups, and some are in the middle, and some are an honest assessment of the current scientific state of affairs. Thus, I have addressed them individually.

Funny how I actually made sure that I didn't go too much into the "religious" websites that you insulted me on.

Emphasis on "too much". There's at least one guy I know on this forum who is probably pissing blood over your posting NARTH links. After all, NArth advocates torturing homosexual teens until they disavow any homosexual feelings. I suspect we will hear from him :D


I didn't say that gay people couldn't have rights. I said that because of the way society acts, homosexuals aren't treated as fairly. They can still vote, teach, drive cars, eat in restaurants, work, and do a lot of things. :sour:

Just not have sex? How generous of you in awarding rights to these people. :rolleyes: Well guess what? Now they can legally have sex as well. I imagine gay marriage is another generation away.

I don't care what tough pointers you have, you still can't make the majority of people think the same way as you.:sour: Actually this applies towards Loki too, but that is a different issue altogether.

There are two issues here: what the majority of Americans believe, and what science says is true. The two don't always coincide. This was the case for evolution for a very long time, and even now a large number of Americans think Evolution is garbage, despite the fact that there is more collected data supporting the ToE than any other scientific theory ever advanced.

As for public opinion, my only purpose here is to uphold science over distortion and lies. As long as people have the facts, they can deny them or not as they wish. But I WILL insist that the real data be looked at, not some distortions and untruths presented by people with an underlying agenda. If you will, THAT is MY agenda: that the real science be presented, not lies. After that, I'm content to let it speak for itself.

I'm going to bed.:D

Sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite

[Steve_Shapiro]

Originally posted by Wormboy
*snip*


You can't even make up your mind as to what's correct whether or not genetics makes homosexuality innate. Just like how scientists have figured out that protein 53 can "practically cure" all diseases, but they haven't found a function in order to use it right. Nothing is 100% certain, so I'll leave it at that. I'm sure my post wasn't a waste of bandwidth considering your post was like waaaaayyyyy long.

By the way, just for humor I live in a very clean neighborhood.:p No bed bugs here, don't know about you though.;)

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
[B]You can't even make up your mind as to what's correct whether or not genetics makes homosexuality innate.

I've been very clear and consistent all along. The twin study data say that a large part of homosexuality is innate (concordance of 54%) which is large fraction when you consider that skin color is only 80% concordant. And I have also stated that the part which is NOT genetic appears to be resolved in early childhood, according to the psychology studies.

Thus, the Hamer stuff is irrelevant, which I've tried to make clear. Hamer failed because homosexuality, like all other behaviors, is probably VERY polygenic. I used bipolar as a good example of this. Last time: Hamer's experiments DO NOTHING to address how much of homosexuality is genetic. He was just trying to map a specific gene. Probably the reason he failed is that you can't map it to one gene if many are involved; you need to use a different approach (like they did with bipolar).

Twin studies avoid all that crap, which is why they are the gold standard.

Just like Creationists, who will do whatever they can to distort the truth to discredit evolution, certain groups have taken a similar approach to try to discredit the science that indicates that homosexuality is largely innate. I recommend avoiding websites with a clear pre-existing agenda (though people are getting canny and trying to avoid letting people figure out what they are REALLY about--those nut cases at NARTH are a good example). If somebody has a pre-existing agenda, they are incapaable of impartiality, and that is not consistent with good science.

Just like how scientists have figured out that protein 53 can "practically cure" all diseases, but they haven't found a function in order to use it right.

LOL never heard it called "protein 53" before--everybody calls it p53. And I never read a single article anywhere that said that p53 would necessarily cure any for of cancer (the process in which it has a role), much less any other disease. People were hopeful, but scientists are constitutionally conservative about interporetations. If you read an over-prediction, I guarantee you it was the press, not the scientists (the exception being Jim Watson, who is a lunatic).


Nothing is 100% certain, so I'll leave it at that.

Like I said, homosexuality isn't 100% genetic. But it is largely genetic, and the remaining part that is environmental appears to be over and done with by age 5, before anybody is actually sexually active.

So homosexuality can hardly be a "Choice," can it? WHich is how we started on this, I believe.

It always comes down to certainty. As a last resort a layperson who doesn't like the conclusions that they get from science will always say "Yeah, well science is NEVER certain." The funny thing is, if that were true, would we be surrounded by all of the astounding technology provided by engineering, chemistry, physics, and yes, biology? Science is a give and take struggle, but one comes pretty close to the truth pretty soon. Usually after that it is more refinement than new discovery. I think laypeople often take that as some sort of doubt about the validity of the science. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm sure my post wasn't a waste of bandwidth considering your post was like waaaaayyyyy long.

The only thing I said was wasted were some of your links, which were clearly to religious extremists with a strong anti-homosexual agenda. Frankly, I think it's a monumental waste of time to turn to folks like that to look for your "Scientific evidence," or lack thereof. They usually have no use for science that doesn't fit their preconception of the way the world is. Like I said before, such an attitude is completely inconsistent with scientific thinking.

Active intellectual debate is usually worthwhile, IMO.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Gray Fox

The United States is a federal REPUBLIC. Meaning that there is a check and balance against the passions of the elected bodies, that being the Constitution of the United States. In the US, there are two levels of law: Constitutional and legal. Constitutional supersedes legal. Legal violates constitutional, say the "execution law" that I suggested in the above paragraph, the courts can put an injunction against it, and the US Supreme Court would eventually shut it down entirely by throwing out the law.

Another term I've encountered for it is liberal democracyn *democracy wedded with constitutional liberalism*

[Lesbian]

I have gay sex every day.
I also have great sex every day.
No law would EVER stop me from that, so they can try and do whatever they want. They would never catch me.

[edit] BTW homosexuality is not a choice. at least its not for me. I can not controll who I am and am not attracted to. Women do it for me, and men... well a few do but not enough.

[Terentius]

Originally posted by Lesbian
They would never catch me.

IP: Logged


/sulks at someone obviously having a great sexlife

[Miang]

Mmm, another member of the glorious Sapphic sisterhood?

Oh well, welcome aboard.

Steve:

We have no laws or anything in the Constitution(with amendments) that says sexual orientation is protected. Last I checked the issue of weight control also might have been considered to be added to the discrimination list, but I haven't seen any such action taking place.

Well, the 'the pursuit of happiness' though declared an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independance, isn't written specificly into the Constitution itself (On the other hand, the Constitution makes no claims as to being a definitive listing of all rights enjoyed by citizens). It is, however, in a number of state constitutions, and I believe the SC's even cited before in its decisions with marriage as a given right under that pursuit.

I would say that being able to pursue love is, to me at least, a rather integrall part of the pursuit of happiness. Isn't it to you?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
We have no laws or anything in the Constitution(with amendments) that says sexual orientation is protected. Last I checked the issue of weight control also might have been considered to be added to the discrimination list, but I haven't seen any such action taking place.

Well, one of the Amendments that was used frequently in the precedent of cases leading up to this decision is the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/index.html

You can't just read into the constitution literally, Steve. From the site:

The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' -Justice Warren

***

Important points bolded, underlined, and italicised.

[Terentius]

/me hugs article one of our constitution

The Constitution of the Netherlands wrote:
Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.


Really, because there's nothing in the constitution concerning the protection of sexuality rights it's okay to limit those rights?

You guys need a new constitution, the 18th century is long gone.

[Dreadnaught]

There is actually a group of constitutional scholars that agrees. They have some good points. If there weren't so much legal precedent based on the US constitution, I would be inclined to agree as well.

[Terentius]

You think that is different with us? Okay, maybe not as extreme as with you, but still. Yet our constitution is updated every 10, 12 years or so.

(update feature noticeably lacking from US constitution)

[Loki]

Amendment XIV

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.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Terentius
You think that is different with us? Okay, maybe not as extreme as with you, but still. Yet our constitution is updated every 10, 12 years or so.

(update feature noticeably lacking from US constitution)

There is an "update feature" in the US constitution, but it intentionally makes it so that only a large majority can change the constitution. I believe the last amendment was in 1992, but it wasn't anything major.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Terentius
You think that is different with us? Okay, maybe not as extreme as with you, but still. Yet our constitution is updated every 10, 12 years or so.

(update feature noticeably lacking from US constitution)

How long is your Constitution?

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
How long is your Constitution?

It's actually fairly short compared to other European constitutions (23 pages in Word compared to 10 for the US, 62 for Canada, and 38 for Swiss Cheese). I think it also gets to the point much quicker than ours: Link (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nl00000_.html)

If not for the chaos that would be caused by changing a few words in the Constitution, I think some of the archaic language and grammar should be changed. I'm sure that it's not on Congress' agenda though, and probably won't happen for another few centuries.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
I think some of the archaic language and grammar should be changed.

But then you wouldn't be able to debate what the Framers meant by placing that comma there :)

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
But then you wouldn't be able to debate what the Framers meant by placing that comma there :)

That's what I meant by the mass chaos that would ensue. :)

[Parmenio]

Been busy lately, but don't fear I always return.

Originally posted by Wormboy
Question parmenio: why are you so automatically abusive of those you disagree with? It's a pattern I have seen over and over with you. IMO it seriously undermines your arguments.

Your deffinition of abuse is not mine, I am having a discussion, I try to treat everyone like grown ups, being that they don't run for the hills everytime someone uses a smart a$$ remark. (and I use them often:) )

If you can't focus on the obvious points, then that is your problem, I have been on this forum long before you ever came here and I haven't changed one thing about my style. I haven't just started this style you dislike, and I haven't had any problems before (if someone put me on ignore, I haven't heard of it).

You are the only person that has ever complained about it. I think that is because you and me have different views on just about everything, and you take everything as some kind of huge offense. I have been called more names on these forums than you ever will, I make my points and I try to address those others make.

The only people I hate are those that say something and then don't make a point after it, and I have never done that.


1) This is a case of gays being discriminated against just because they are gay and acting on that state of being. Sodomy is the predominant form of gay sex, along with oral sex, which is ALSO illegal in several states, and will doubtlessly be overturned as well by this judgement.

2) Gay isn't a choice, but a state of being. We know that the whole deal is over by the time they are in early childhood. Thus, it is an innate trait.

3) Race is an innate trait as well, as is gender.

4) Thus, if you act against somebody for acting on a gay sexual orientation, you are discriminating against them, because their orientation is innate.

5) And discriminating against one innate trait (orientation) is no different than discriminating against another innate trait (color of skin, or gender)

Is it a "state of being"? If it is fine, I would have liked to see the scientific evidence that should have been submited to the Supreme Court in that case. Also if being gay is a "state of being" then are all sexual preferences "states of being"?

I am not saying it is or isn't, I really don't know, but if being gay is, then is being a pederast (beatial, incestuous, rapist(?) etc)also? These are the questions that need to be answered and as far as I have heard they haven't been solved yet.

I get what you are saying, but being gay is not the same as being black. You are a geneticist, even if there is a gay gene, it would get passed on completely differently than the one for skin color. They aren't the same, and I get your point.

The big question is "is being gay innate"? I could be convinced, but I also have heard of at least one gay person that said it was their "choice".

Also if sexuality is innate, then what about the other "alternate" lifestyles? Your "innate" line makes sense, but we don't know what is and what isn't innate.

Thus, it is not discrimination, but just disagreement. Nobody condemns disagreement, as long as it is done civilly. :D

I don't agree to that. ;)

A pretty straightforward concept, one you get down to it.

Yes when you look at the surface of it, it is pretty straightforward, but when you start digging into it, it falls apart pretty easily.

But you still didn't even address Scalia's point, or mine, that this isn't a judicial decision but a legistalive one.

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Gray Fox
I can tell you learned what you learned about the United State's form of government from a middle school social studies book. Let me do a bit of deprogramming here:

See Wormboy, insults abound, but I really don't care, now on to the meat. ;)

The United States is not a democracy. It is, by it's definition, a constitutional federal republic.

Ah, we have had this discussion on these boards before, it is a semantical argument, but for all intents and purposes we are a democracy, but if you want to pursue that I will stipulate the fact that we are a republic and not a democracy.

.... Japanese-Americans, a lot of them US Citizens, were interred at US government run camps in the west ...They sued, and the US Supreme Court ruled against them, because FDR stacked the court with government supporters. The interments were violations of the constitution, but it reflected the democractic popular will that the Japanese-Americans had their loyalties elsewhere than their new home country.

That's right FDR rigged the courts system for the specific purpose of being allowed to imprison Japanese Americans in case we were attacked. :rolleyes:

Also the court ruling is used as a means of showing that the powers of the president increases in times of national emergencies, and during national emergencies they can do things that under peacetime would be illegal. It has nothing to do with the people, even if that is what they thought.

Unlikely in the state of Texas, where conservatives rule the government and believe primarily that homosexuals are evil people, just like the Legislature of Alabama and many other southern states in the 1950's.

As everyone I have heard stipulates, these laws aren't Jim Crow, they are archaic laws that most don't even know exist, even the gay rights establishment where I live know that (they said that the overturning is more symbolic than anything) I have yet to hear of anyone really trying to overturn this law through the legislature, I know enough of Texas to know that they aren't a bunch of gun toting morons that all hate gay people.

But if the US was only a representative democracy, there would be no recourse for the minority who voted against such dictator, who would likely be hounded and arrested. Think it can't happen? Ask the opponents of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Yes the US and Zimbabwe are extremely similar, and what one does is inevitable in the other. Good call. :up:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Parmenio

As everyone I have heard stipulates, these laws aren't Jim Crow, they are archaic laws that most don't even know exist, even the gay rights establishment where I live know that

In most places, yes, they are old laws. But the law in Texas was not old. In fact, Bush strongly supported its passing. Incidentally, the Governor at the time, Richards, did not exactly do much to oppose the law. She was a Democrat, to provide the context.

There was a whole-sale overhaul of the Texas criminal code. The committee in charge of revising it took the sodomy statute out. Some journalist noticed, a stink was raised, and the legislature put it in. Richards signed it into law *thanks a lot, Ann :sour:

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

iT MAKES ME SO DAMN ANGRY AROUND YOU PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SUUPPORTING THESE DIGUSTING SICK CHILD MOLESTING MONSTERS! tHERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION! i HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE BIG C, AND THERE IS NO DAMN RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
All right, i've calmed down now. It is actually unconstitutional for the S.C. to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. The SC has taken sides in the culture war. :(*)

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Terentius
/

You guys need a new constitution, the 18th century is long gone.
And you need a new brain. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Gray Fox]

I have yet to hear of anyone really trying to overturn this law through the legislature, I know enough of Texas to know that they aren't a bunch of gun toting morons that all hate gay people.

I'm a gun toting gay person. Beat that! :)

Actually, multiple bills were introduced to repeal Penal Section 21.06, the Homosexual Conduct law. They never went anywhere. This was the state that nearly banned all gay people from adopting or even having foster children in their care. Needless to say, due to the Lawrence case, they WILL lose in the courts if they try it again.

[Gray Fox]

And you need a new brain. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

and you need to get...oh..I dunno...BANNED?!! :p :rolleyes:

[-Kosh-]

Originally posted by Gray Fox
and you need to get...oh..I dunno...BANNED?!! :p :rolleyes:

Now now now, play nice. ;)

[Miang]

Hiya Kosh.

Mega:

iT MAKES ME SO DAMN ANGRY AROUND YOU PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SUUPPORTING THESE DIGUSTING SICK CHILD MOLESTING MONSTERS!

... who, exactly?

tHERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION! i HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE BIG C, AND THERE IS NO DAMN RIGHT TO PRIVACY!

This strikes me as a rather frightening view for an American to actually be advocating.

Somehow I imagine you'd also describe yourself as a supporter of 'small government', wouldn't you?

All right, i've calmed down now. It is actually unconstitutional for the S.C. to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. The SC has taken sides in the culture war.

If it's unconstitutional for the SC to make such a ruling then who does the task fall to? Congress? The President? What is the SC's duty supposed to be?

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Miang

If it's unconstitutional for the SC to make such a ruling then who does the task fall to? Congress? The President? What is the SC's duty supposed to be?
If anyone, congress. It isn't a courts place to make(or remove) laws; it is their job to enforce those laws. You liberals are very stupid. The constitution only applies when it can be twisted to fit your agenda.
Those laws were not a gay sex ban: they were an anal sex ban. Lesies were fine. The reason for this? Anal sex is the greatest tranferer of STDs. Over 40% percent of gays have STDs. And you actually want them to be able to concieve children? Listen to Micheal savage once in a while, he has a phd in medicine, and is a national radio talk show host, fourth most recongnized in the country. Just call him, I don't care to cite sources that you will call unreliable.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Miang
If it's unconstitutional for the SC to make such a ruling then who does the task fall to? Congress? The President? What is the SC's duty supposed to be?

It's not constitutional or unconstitutional. :) Mashall gave the Court that power through his rather generous interpretation of the Supremacy clause.

[Gray Fox]

Those laws were not a gay sex ban: they were an anal sex ban. Lesies were fine.

Wrong again. Lived in the states of Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Lousiana, Virginia, Utah, or Idaho? Ever get a BJ from your girlfriend in these states? You're a criminal if you have. :)

[Miang]

If anyone, congress.

Er, the same people who passed the law in the first place?

If Congress wishes to nullify a law it doesn't need to the previous one to be found unconstitutional, it only has to draft a new bill which supplants the old one.

It isn't a courts place to make(or remove) laws;

It's their place to interpret and apply the law. If laws conflict (Two laws, a law and the state or federal constitution, etc.) it's the courts place to try and reconcile them. If the legislature finds the courts' interpretation of their laws unacceptable they can draft a revised version which eliminates the conflict or ambiguity.

The point is that when two laws conflict it's the judicial branch on which the burden of attempting to resolve them falls upon. It's not Congress, they made the law in the first place, it doesn't come back to haunt them until it's attempted to be put into practice. It's not the executive branch's duty to pick and choose which laws to enforce, either. It's the judicial that's presented with the conflict and the necessity of trying to present a resolution to it.

Note too that this is the same reason why the US Supreme Court can't issue general 'findings of the court' the way similar institutions can in most other democracies (Ex, Israel). It has to be presented with an actual case in which a specific constitutional issue is in question.

it is their job to enforce those laws.

No, that's the duty of the executive branch. Be it expressed by the Presidency, police, prosecutors, etc.

You liberals are very stupid. The constitution only applies when it can be twisted to fit your agenda.

If you say so. Where do we ignore it, then?

Those laws were not a gay sex ban: they were an anal sex ban. Lesies were fine. The reason for this? Anal sex is the greatest tranferer of STDs. Over 40% percent of gays have STDs.

Hmm, source? That sounds awfully high to me, even if we're excluding lesbians from 'gays'.

And you actually want them to be able to concieve children?

'To be able to', is a rather different thing then wanting to. I might want the former, at least as a possible hypothetical, even if I don't actually want it in the present. I certainly wouldn't want anyone attempting to deny it to me or anyone else, I don't expect people to feel the same way I do let alone be required to abide by that.

And what does this have to do with anything?

Listen to Micheal savage once in a while, he has a phd in medicine, and is a national radio talk show host, fourth most recongnized in the country. Just call him, I don't care to cite sources that you will call unreliable.

Er, isn't this the same gentleman who was recently fired from MSNBC for telling a caller "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!"?

And again, rather than citing this person as a general source, is there anything he says in particular you're wishing to bring up?

(Edit)

Loki:

It's not constitutional or unconstitutional. Mashall gave the Court that power through his rather generous interpretation of the Supremacy clause.

Technically true, though it still falls within what the original intent for the SC was in the first place. Some of the Federalist Papers talk about creating a national court with the ability to arbitrate on the legality of laws passed by the legislature.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't see why you're both feeding the Mega-dog troll. :p

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
If anyone, congress. It isn't a courts place to make(or remove) laws; it is their job to enforce those laws. You liberals are very stupid. The constitution only applies when it can be twisted to fit your agenda.

No, it's the Executive's job to enforce laws. Judges don't enforce laws, they have no ability to enforce anything. The police power belongs to the Executive. Judges, surprisingly enough, judge. They interpret the laws, and *as is made quite clear in the notes taken at the Constitutional Convention, and in the Federalist Papers* they engage in judicial review.

Over 40% percent of gays have STDs. And you actually want them to be able to concieve children? Listen to Micheal savage once in a while, he has a phd in medicine, and is a national radio talk show host, fourth most recongnized in the country. Just call him, I don't care to cite sources that you will call unreliable.

Didn't Savage just get fired? *and that 40 percent statistic is laughable. The CDC's been reporting studies that say 7 %

In one study, 7 percent of young gay men surveyed tested positive for HIV and 41 percent reported engaging in high-risk sexual behavior.
one of the links you refuse to provide (http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/1999/991201.asp)

You certain you're not getting the two statistics confused *and then, of course, Savage was in talk radio. He might have just said that 41% WILL get AIDS*

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
It's not constitutional or unconstitutional. :) Mashall gave the Court that power through his rather generous interpretation of the Supremacy clause.

Loki, go read Madison's notes again. I agree, it was not explicitly inserted in the text of the Constitution, but it does seem to have been the consensus at the Convention.

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Loki, go read Madison's notes again. I agree, it was not explicitly inserted in the text of the Constitution, but it does seem to have been the consensus at the Convention.

Is that why it took over a decade for the SC to start using that power?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
Is that why it took over a decade for the SC to start using that power?

Did they have any cases before then where one side was unconstitutional? I'll admit that the Court can be relunctant to use it's powers, *go look at their reaction when they got slapped by the 11th amendment after ruling on Chisholm v Georgia* but that's not the same thing as not having those powers. I think I'll leave my side of the question to Miang though, I expect she'll do a better job.

Edit: In fact, Chisholm *plus an earlier case, Hayburn, which had peope calling for the impeachment of the justices* probably had a lot to do with the time it took the Supreme Court to start using judicial review.

[ayoolagoku]

Originally posted by Steve_Shapiro
Saying people should be able to have sex with animals is gross, Loki. It's not only offending but it also doesn't fit with the part of "moral laws". I'm fine with gay guys doing their own thing, but legalizing bestiality is a bit far.

Can't agree with you more, having sex with an animal is just plan stupid, as for gays I can live with them having their on thing.

[Philosophy101]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
iT MAKES ME SO DAMN ANGRY AROUND YOU PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SUUPPORTING THESE DIGUSTING SICK CHILD MOLESTING MONSTERS! tHERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION! i HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE BIG C, AND THERE IS NO DAMN RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
All right, i've calmed down now. It is actually unconstitutional for the S.C. to determine what is and what isn't constitutional. The SC has taken sides in the culture war. :(*)

Everyone's already torn you to pieces already, but I think I'll add that you're an extraordinarily uninformed, bigoted bucket of hate with an understanding of the "Big C," as you call it, lower than my middle-school brother. Check out the fourth (I think) ammendment sometime. Interesting stuff about PRIVACY.

[Loki]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Philosophy101]

Thanks Loki.

Fighting idiocy, wherever it may be...

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Lesbian
I have gay sex every day.
I also have great sex every day.
No law would EVER stop me from that, so they can try and do whatever they want. They would never catch me.

[edit] BTW homosexuality is not a choice. at least its not for me. I can not controll who I am and am not attracted to. Women do it for me, and men... well a few do but not enough.
You aren't a lesbian. You are a cynical eleven year old nerd. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a male. You don't see anyone with the name "straight"

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
You aren't a lesbian. You are a cynical eleven year old nerd. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a male. You don't see anyone with the name "straight"

Does it take one to know one? You really need to do some actual fact searching instead of making up %'s and assuming that everyone fits your streotypes. By the way the sodomy law doesn't just apply to anal sex as you put it.

[MEGACHIHUAHUA]

Originally posted by Thrawn88
Everyone's already torn you to pieces already, but I think I'll add that you're an extraordinarily uninformed, bigoted bucket of hate with an understanding of the "Big C," as you call it, lower than my middle-school brother. Check out the fourth (I think) ammendment sometime. Interesting stuff about PRIVACY.
Why, how hypocritical! And you are not hateful against hateful conservitives and christians?
I believe the cons****ution only applies to you when it fits your agenda. Affirmitive Racism is a direct violation of the fifteenth, but the "right to diversity" is higher. In addition, would it be a violation to the right to privacy to murder in your home, and then be arrested?
I have nothing against gays, except when they are openly gay, or shove their agenda down your throat, or say I'm a hateful biggot when you're the same thing.
Origanally posted by LittleFuzzy
Er, isn't this the same gentleman who was recently fired from MSNBC for telling a caller "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!"?

And again, rather than citing this person as a general source, is there anything he says in particular you're wishing to bring up?

How interesting that you forgot to mention that Savage was off the air, and that the caller made a personal attack against him! Or that MSNBC never liked savage. for example:
They are an openly liberal station
He had a horrible time slot
He never got any promotions
They refused to give him the pictures of the gassed Kurds
Origanally posted by LittleFuzzy
In one study, 7 percent of young gay men surveyed tested positive for HIV and 41 percent reported engaging in high-risk sexual behavior
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Think things through. This is a study among young gay men, not all ages.
:p

[-Kosh-]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
I have nothing against gays, except when they are openly gay,


Wow. The group of us on these forums must really give you seizures, eh?


I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

Well, there's the pumps calling the handbag "beige." :haha::up:

http://66.93.1.145/kosh/smiles/lurk.gif

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Why, how hypocritical! And you are not hateful against hateful conservitives and christians?
I believe the cons****ution only applies to you when it fits your agenda. Affirmitive Racism is a direct violation of the fifteenth, but the "right to diversity" is higher. In addition, would it be a violation to the right to privacy to murder in your home, and then be arrested?
I have nothing against gays, except when they are openly gay, or shove their agenda down your throat, or say I'm a hateful biggot when you're the same thing.

How interesting that you forgot to mention that Savage was off the air, and that the caller made a personal attack against him! Or that MSNBC never liked savage. for example:
They are an openly liberal station
He had a horrible time slot
He never got any promotions
They refused to give him the pictures of the gassed Kurds

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Think things through. This is a study among young gay men, not all ages.
:p

Two things, A) the first area which you have as a quote of mine is, in fact, Miang. I don't listen to the radio, so I know very little about Savage. All I knew was that he existed, and that he'd been fired recently. B) Yes, but young men have the highest infection rate in the US. All other percentages outside the category, or for the total infected gay population, are going to be lower.

And again, the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm)

[Philosophy101]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
Why, how hypocritical! And you are not hateful against hateful conservitives and christians?
I believe the cons****ution only applies to you when it fits your agenda. Affirmitive Racism is a direct violation of the fifteenth, but the "right to diversity" is higher. In addition, would it be a violation to the right to privacy to murder in your home, and then be arrested?
I have nothing against gays, except when they are openly gay, or shove their agenda down your throat, or say I'm a hateful biggot when you're the same thing.
:p

Please find a post of mine in which i was hateful to someone who had not initiated the flaming. Please find a post of mine in which i was hateful to anyone because of their Christianity, and that alone.

What is my agenda?

Please find a post of mine in which I even DISCUSS Affirmitive Action, or "racism," as you oh so cleverly call it.

Are you comparing the right to privacy of gays to have sex in their home to the practice of killing people in their own home?

To have nothing against gays so long as they do not are open about it is hypocritical and nonsensical. Am I not a racist if I claim, "Blacks are fine, so long as they paint their skin to appear white."

[Miang]

I'm not Littlefuzzy, though I've made the inadverdent misattributation before so...

Anyways.

How interesting that you forgot to mention that Savage was off the air, and that the caller made a personal attack against him!

Er, no on the first, no idea on the second.

Quoting from Yahoo News---

Saturday's episode of "The Savage Nation," his 15th since the program's debut in March, featured Savage discussing air travel with callers.

One caller began discussing his experiences, and after an unintelligible part of the call, Savage asked him "So are you one of those sodomists?"

When the caller said, "Yes I am," Savage, reclining in a chair with his arms folded and wearing dark sunglasses, responded, "Oh, you're one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!" in a clip of the show hosted on the Web site of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. --- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030707/tv_nm/television_msnbc_dc_4

I don't know, and to be quite honest, really don't care if the caller made a personal attack on him. Savage is, apparantly, a big boy. He should be able to handle it.

Or that MSNBC never liked savage. for example:
They are an openly liberal station

Traitors. How is this so, though?

He had a horrible time slot

Gasp.

He never got any promotions

Double gasp and swoon. Have the authorities been alerted?

Honestly. He lasted fifteen episodes. Why would he be expecting a promotion?

They refused to give him the pictures of the gassed Kurds

I'm not familiar with the circumstances here, but why would Savage be dependant upon MSNBC here?

And to repeat my question from before again, is there a reason why you were bringing Savage up in the first place?

I believe the cons****ution only applies to you when it fits your agenda.

You've said this before but you aren't really saying anything about why. Is it an article of belief for you?

Affirmitive Racism is a direct violation of the fifteenth, but the "right to diversity" is higher.

Affirmative Action, in its original sense, meant simply that employers/educators had to be able to show they were making an equal effort to recruit qualified applicants of all races. There's nothing about quotas or favoring one race over another, though if an area does have a large qualified pool of applicants available which are never highered that might be a sign of something else.

In addition, would it be a violation to the right to privacy to murder in your home, and then be arrested?

Mmm, no. But laws against murder can be enforced without monitoring what everyone does in their bedrooms, don't you agree? 'Sodomy laws' cannot.

I have nothing against gays, except when they are openly gay,

There's over a half dozen on this board I know of.

or shove their agenda down your throat,

What, you mean 9:00 AM Hair Appointment, 10:00 Shopping, 12:00 Brunch, 2:00 PM Assume Complete and Total Control over the United States and all world governments? 4:00 Cocktails?

or say I'm a hateful biggot when you're the same thing.

Even if I, or Thrawn, or anyone here was, would that really excuse you from being another?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Miang
What, you mean 9:00 AM Hair Appointment, 10:00 Shopping, 12:00 Brunch, 2:00 PM Assume Complete and Total Control over the United States and all world governments? 4:00 Cocktails?


Miang, please. Brunch is 11, noon is for working on keeping the tan even.

[Moridin00]

Well, I've got therapy at 3:30 sweetie...

World domination will have to wait.

*Sigh*

;)

[']['ear]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
And you need a new brain. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

is this an example of enlightened debate? I see you are worthy of all of the flames you have attracted. heh, I think I will join in. :p

[']['ear]

Originally posted by MEGACHIHUAHUA
iT MAKES ME SO DAMN ANGRY AROUND YOU PEOPLE TO HEAR YOU SUUPPORTING THESE DIGUSTING SICK CHILD MOLESTING MONSTERS! tHERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION! i HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE BIG C, AND THERE IS NO DAMN RIGHT TO PRIVACY!


"Child molesting mosnters?" Who exactly are you talking about? Because context clues suggest you are talking about gays, and I find this about the most offensive and totally slanderous statement I've ever seen on this forum. Not to mention that I think it's an outright lie.

So here I go: I WANT A FREAKIN SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!! You insinuate that homosexuals are child-molesters. PROVE IT. I want a source that says that homosexuals are more likely to sexually assault minors than heterosexuals are. Surely the statistics are out there?

Put up or shut up, noob.

[']['ear]

Originally posted by Miang

What, you mean 9:00 AM Hair Appointment, 10:00 Shopping, 12:00 Brunch, 2:00 PM Assume Complete and Total Control over the United States and all world governments? 4:00 Cocktails?



ROFLMFAO!!! :haha: :haha: :haha:

Miang for president!







But seriously....
I'm tired of the religious right poisoning the well for all conservatives. Those idiots wouldn't know the constitution if it crawled up their booty hole and nested there. Thjey are making the Republican party a mockery. Normal fiscal conservatives (like meself) don't give a crap about their extremist social agenda, and just wish we could have some serious fiscal conservatism. Screw this fiddling with constitutional rights. maybe the way to vote is Libertarian, because it seems like they have fewer nujmbnuts trying to control the details of everybody's lives.

[Miang]

Right, right, of course. I'm sorry.

Let's see. I suppose we could cut brunch short a half hour to make up for it, but I'd really rather not have to do that. How about we just cut world domination off a half hour early for Myr's sake and leave New Zealand independant?

']['ear:

ROFLMFAO!!!

Miang for president!

Thank you, but I really can't take credit for it. Variation of an internet joke that just always seems to come to my mind for some reason whenever someone mentions the gay agenda.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Well, I've got therapy at 3:30 sweetie...

World domination will have to wait.

*Sigh*

;) World domination should never start before 6. You plot better after a satisfying meal :)

[Hazir]

I think world domination is soooooo 90s.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Miang
Let's see. I suppose we could cut brunch short a half hour to make up for it, but I'd really rather not have to do that. How about we just cut world domination off a half hour early for Myr's sake and leave New Zealand independant?

Think of the sheep. :(

[Mahram]

In all this hair splitting, it seems to me that you guys are missing one important little observation.

Why do any of these people want to control any aspect of anyone else's life unless it involves murder or molestation of the innocent? Who you have sex with has nothing to do with their existence. My private life is not subject to condemnation or approval by anyone else unless I'm maliciously attacking other beings.

For me, that has always been the bottom line. It seems pretty simple to me:

1. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
2. If it's not yours, leave it alone.
3. To each their own.


:)

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Hazir
I think world domination is soooooo 90s.

Wrong, Hazir, being an Evil Overlord is ALWAYS the in-thing :)

[Nessus]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Wrong, Hazir, being an Evil Overlord is ALWAYS the in-thing :)

Says the man in a black-and-red cape so he wouldn't look so silly...:D

[']['ear]

Originally posted by Mahram

Why do any of these people want to control any aspect of anyone else's life unless it involves murder or molestation of the innocent? Who you have sex with has nothing to do with their existence. My private life is not subject to condemnation or approval by anyone else unless I'm maliciously attacking other beings.

For me, that has always been the bottom line. It seems pretty simple to me:

1. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
2. If it's not yours, leave it alone.
3. To each their own.


:)

Amen!

It's gotten to the point where I am ashamed to call myself conservative, because people automatically assume I am a a totalitarian pig. So I always say "fiscal conservative." Live and let live, I say. I never understood how a real patriot could have any other credo.

[Miang]

Think of the sheep.

Bah, the sheep are loose. Besides, think of the smell!