Posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Sunsong
Do you believe in begging the question and then running away from your assertion?
Let's review:
Laws against bestiality generally recognize that an animal cannot be a consenting adult.
Laws against beastialty AND homosexual sodomy have coexisted for thousands of years.
What's your source?
That's not your "point". You were asserting that there was no compelling argument for legal restrictions on homosexaul sodomy.
Now you're arguing that the 60% of HIV cases spread by homosexual sex isn't important compared to their supposed "privacy right" to get their nut, whatever the societal costs.
That is not the issue. Again as you accused me of, you are weaseling. Morality is a difficult thing to legislate. I asked you to draft a law that prohibits male sodomy yet does not violate the constitutional rights of that group. I would think you could do it in a few sentences. You can explain how after 100 thousand years of homosexual conduct, we are in great danger today because, although their numbers have not grown and they are still less than 2 percent of the population, what they do in the privacy of their own homes poses a great danger to this Republic.
Quit acting like a child. What's your next question -- why is sex with a 17-year-old legal but not one who is 16 1/2? Why is 55MPH legal but not 56MPH? Huh? Huh? Huh??
Child? Don't leave yourself open like that....
Sex with a 17 year old is illegal for everyone unless she is married in those states permitting such marriages. She is considered not to have the capacity to make an adult decision and is therefore at a disadvantage. No court would rule otherwise. But the law doesn't care whether the perp is gay or straight. Do you see the difference? It's called equal protection of the law. As for your silly speeding analogy, if certain classes of people were not allowed to go 56 mph, but others were, then you have a constitutional issue requiring the state to explain. But since everyone is required to obey the speed laws, there is no violation. And that wisdom from a child.....
Certain behaviors are not acceptable to our society. Homosexual sodomy is one. You may get some court to accept it, but that's a hollow victory and you know it.
Oh, I don't know. As I asked before, are you even aware of such laws? If not, then apparently society has either awaken to the Constitution, or is not as homophobic as some here....or both.
Beging the question of the existence of the supposed constitutional right. Around and around and around.
You incorrectly assume cause prevalence and probability of infection within a subgroup correlates to the total cause prevalence and probability of infection based upon the total number of people infected from the various subgroups...
You might make the case that "we" are not treating the major numbers of infected with such logic; however, you can not make the claim that "we" are not addressing the major causes because you do not address them...
When one realistically considers that the activities of 2-3 % of the population account for 35% of the infections then one must look at the fact that said population has the highest infection rate and as such constitutes the MAJOR cause for concern as to a infection cause to be stopped...
Who says they are? I think this makes the third time now that I've stated that the law is against a behavior/activity, not people.
"And where does it stand today?"
AFAIK, the citizens of the State of Texas are still against it.
Is that clear enough for you?"
Nope. What you've described is exacly the situation as it exists today. I want to know why, if there is a constitutional right to privacy -- as you say there is -- it doesn't extend to the private use of drugs, prostitution or gambling in the home, or even the possession (not use) of drugs in the car.
Look. Forget it. You can't answer that because there IS no constitutional right to privacy. If there was, these activities would be covered. They'd have to be.
"BTW, have you devised that new law yet?"
Yeah. I already told you. I'd simply take the existing state laws against pedophilia or bestiality or necrophilia or incest and modify them by substituting "homosexual sodomy" in the appropriate areas.
Those laws were good in all the states that had them -- it wasn't until the federal courts got involved that they were overturned. But I thought you didn't want the federal government involved in these types of decisions. I thought you wanted these issues decided by each state. Am I wrong?
Or are you kind of flexible when it comes to constitutional issues -- whichever way you get the most favorable treatment, that's the way you go?
I'm sure they have, but they are not worthy of debate. We had laws permitting slavery for a couple of hundred years too, and black codes were the law of the land. Bad laws that are discriminatory do not stand the test of time when they are challenged. And please leave your silly bestiality straw man out of the dialogue. There may be a comparison in your mind, but fortunately not in the law.
As the 2-3% howls at society for not providing them with a cure.
yes, the state can choose not to recognize marriage, homosexual or heterosexual.
Yep, the State should choose to reasonably regulate the civil aspects of marriage, [childrearing, inheritance, etc.] and choose to ignore the consensual sexual aspects, seeing they have no powers in that area.
Face it, there is no principle that a State can prohibit marriage of any type.
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA.
-- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no
Prohibit in the sense of "not recognize".
Government has no delegated power to regulate the consensual sexual aspects of marriage. Best that they ignore it.
Ah, yes, the tired old equate African-Americans with perverts engaging in sodomy argument.
I think MACVSOG68 was also involved in our current airport passenger screening procedures.
Well, by your own statistics the real percentage is 42% not 60%, but who's counting. You might make the case that something that a tiny percentage of the population engages in results in 7,000 deaths annually compared to a population of 4.3 million. So obviously you will want to do something about the other 1.3 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases too? Or how about smoking. We do know that smoking causes or contributes materially to about 400 thousand deaths a year. Now I know that's not as important as that 7,000 but if we outlawed all cigarettes we know we would stop 57 times as many deaths. If we require homosexuals to use protection and encouraged monogamous relationships we could end those 7000 deaths too.
OTOH if you have something other than health concerns in mind then of course, we better stick with the homosexual males.
Well, you'll never be accused of deep thought.
And how many from syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea? Yet you want to treat all of these equally and place them in the same "STD" category?
"do you approve of gays using protection and engaging in monogamous relationships?"
Why aren't they already, given the deadly nature of their lifestyle? Are you expecting me to believe that a law granting the recognition of gay marriage will change this?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
1. Not so.
2. If so, so what?
Again, I'll type very slowly. If a particular behavior or activity is barred by one group but not another then you have a constitutional issue. If the activity happens to be anal sex, and it is prohibited for homosexual males, but not for heterosexuals, you have unequal application of the law. In any case, any such prohibitions would violate privacy and due process. I know you neither understand nor approve of constitutional rights, but I'm afraid they are a factor in these discussions.
AFAIK, the citizens of the State of Texas are still against it.
Well, there's a few folks in my state that still believe in the Confederacy. But both are living in a dream world that will never return.
I want to know why, if there is a constitutional right to privacy -- as you say there is -- it doesn't extend to the private use of drugs, prostitution or gambling in the home, or even the possession (not use) of drugs in the car.
There is until someone has probable cause to break that privacy barrier. They protect you, not necessarily the activities. The activities could still be illegal, but you are protected until a warrant breaks into that protection.
I thought you wanted these issues decided by each state. Am I wrong?
Yes. You are also not prepared for any kind of discussion of the Constitution. Nor have you any concept of rights.
You have a good day.
No doubt.
If a particular behavior or activity is barred by one group but not another then you have a constitutional issue.
Citation not available on request.
... because there are people today who want to change the laws that have existed for 100 thousand years.
"If not, then apparently society has either awaken to the Constitution, or is not as homophobic as some here....or both."
Dream on. Just because some liberal namby-pambys in black robes imposed their federal opinions on state laws doesn't mean the people in the state had some divine awakening.
I would think you would be against such federal intervention into state business, yes?
Ooh, good one. Hey, MACVSOG68. Better put some ice on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.