Author
|
Topic: Texas sodomy law still on the books
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 27 March 2003 12:55 PM
Where's Jeff when you need him? My understanding would be that you do not specifically have a right to privacy while breaking the law, but you DO have that right until it's been demonstrated that you are, or until there is reasonable grounds to believe that you are. In many cases this proof that you're breaking the law could only come about as a result of violating your privacy... and so you, not the state, should benefit from this logical "bootstrap". In other words: You have a right to privacy UNTIL it's been shown that you're breaking the law, and since this can't be shown without violating your privacy, you can basically do as you please... just don't give anyone "reasonable grounds" or the whole thing comes crashing down. At any rate, how totally backwards is this? As far as I'm concerned, this should mandate the use of an asterisk in phrases like "The Land of the Free*, and the Home of the Brave". *Note: freedom may be contingent on heterosexuality. Some conditions apply. See your Constitution for details.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 27 March 2003 01:37 PM
Minors and adults are entirely separate classes under the law. That's why it's legal to forbid a 5 year old from driving, but would be illegal to forbid single mothers from driving (for example). quote: what would be the legal justification for not allowing selective punishment based on sexual orientation?
That you create now two categories of people, on arbitrary (and likely "moral") grounds. If we can specify, for example, that homosexuals can't have certain types of sex, then what would prevent us from saying that single mothers can't rent apartments, or blacks can't drive with more than one passenger in their car? Someone's just as sure to find a "rational" reason for those too, and I really, really don't think we should be going down that road. Funny thing that the "backwards" lawmakers always forget: if, unlike race, homosexuality is a "choice", then so is every religion. If the answer to persecution of homosexuals is "then just stop choosing to be gay", then the similar answer to persecution on the grounds of religion would be "then stop choosing to believe in an invisible superhero who lives in space".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 27 March 2003 03:06 PM
Blacks and women do, but do single mothers or black kids who choose to dress like "gangbangers"? Nobody's born a single mom or an NWA fan In a perfect world, the law would regard religion as a choice too. That alone wouldn't stop lawmakers from making special laws for special choices, but it would at least put right-wing Xtianity on a level playing field with homosexuality as far as "choice" goes, and they'd be just as vulnerable to persecution based on their choice. But of course in the U.S., and nowhere moreso than the south, religion is NOT regarded this way, but as a sacred system... or "certain" religions anyway.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934
|
posted 28 March 2003 10:00 AM
It seems to me that the discrimination is unconstitutional, not because of sexual orientation but because of sex.It's essentially illegal to RECEIVE anal sex if you are a man, but not if you are a woman. It is not illegal to be a homosexual. It is illegal for a man to engage in anal sex with a man. You don't need constitutional protection for sexual orientation in order to argue that this law is discriminatory, in other words.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 28 March 2003 02:35 PM
US history? What does that have to do with it? I was talking about US constitutional law, which, yes, I will admit, I'm not an expert on. But josh, being a government lawyer, IS, which is why I asked him for information.Unlike you - who was it who was claiming to be a military strategy expert because he had served in the forces? Gee, guess having tea with the Generals really gave you lots of insight, huh?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3631
|
posted 29 March 2003 12:02 AM
quote: You're welcome. I thought it as good for the gander as well as the goose.
There you go, painting with a broad brush again. Since other 'right wing' people have come here and stereotype all of you, you go and assume that I have done the same thing. Where and when did I ever say that all of the 'left wing' people are a bunch of "hippie, granola chewing, baby killing, tree hugging, commie scum"? It's just as absurd as calling all of us 'right wingers' a bunch of "racist, homophobic, religious fanatics" C'mon man, give me a break.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|