|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 27 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Politics: Quick, before they make it illegal |
Posted by
Shade on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 12:02 AM PST
I know this has been discussed in the forums at another time, but if I remember right, last time Mono and I ended at a bit of an impasse where Mono stated these laws were in place to add further insult to child molesters, and I disagreed. I don't know if this is a winning (a Pyrrhic victory to say the least) blow for my argument that these laws are just wrong, or if it's just a ray of hope in a vast sea of hell. Any way, on with the reason.
This article describes a law that will be going before the US supreme court and should be resolved sometime in June or July of this year. And here are a couple of notable quotes:
"WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court, in a case that reaches to the core of American values, heard argument Wednesday on whether Texas or any other state can ban private homosexual conduct between consenting adults."
Yep, you read correctly, the bloody courts are finally going to decide can you imagine that? They are going to somehow decide how humans within the lines of this nation are allowed to conduct their sexual relations. This is about consenting adults folks, not the big bad priest and the little helpless choirboy. Read on if you doubt.
"A gay couple -- charged with violating the sodomy ban after police entered a Houston area home and found them having sex -- is challenging the Texas ban."
...
"Sheriff's deputies entered John Lawrence's home late in the evening of Sept. 17, 1998, to investigate what turned out to be a false report from a neighbor of a "weapon disturbance."
"There, they intruded on Lawrence and (Tyron) Garner having sex,"
So their neighbors decided they didn't like having a nice gay couple in the neighborhood and did something about it. Remember Salem?
Before you think this is prone to have no real effect on the nation as a whole, remember one this is going up in front of the Supreme Court. What these folks decide on a case becomes a part of our constitution. Another quote from the article might add some weight to this fear.
"Smith said his clients are also asking the Supreme Court to recognize "the right of all adult couples, whether same-sex or not, to be free from all forms of government intrusion into their chosen method of sexual expression."
Speaking for Texas, Harris County District Attorney Charles Rosenthal Jr. said the Lone Star State's ban "does not violate the 14th Amendment ... because the Constitution has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in extra-marital sex."
The constitution has never recognized... Scary words when you think about it. If you thought the war on Teenagers had too much ammo before today; think again. If this reaches the Supreme Court and they say that no one has the right to extra-marital sex...well, it's a little scary to contemplate.
After being convicted in a justice of the peace court, the men filed motions to suppress the charges on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional.
When those motions failed, the men pleaded no contest, were found guilty and paid $200 fines, plus court costs.
So to recap, they were successfully fined under a BS law for a trumped up excuse for an invasion of their privacy, and all because they weren't intending to have a baby? I swear if they somehow make masturbation illegal in this country I'll be first in line to jerk off on the whitehouse.
I'll hold you jacket darling.
|
| |
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quick, before they make it illegal | Login/Create an account | 46 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Closetgothbabe on Mar 31, 2003 - 12:30 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://photos.yahoo.com/genevive3121
|
Oh now that is so fucked up, thats total bull shit!
I'll be the first to jerk off on the whitehouse...bwahahaha!!
Im suprised masturbation isnt illegal...that is so silly! Gotta love our government!
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Geist (tattooedslacker@yahoo.com)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 02:23 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I'm not feelin to eloquent right now so i'll just say it.
FUCK THAT !!! They can all eat my ass... In fact I'm on my way to the whitehouse now, wheres my damn lotion ?
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Psychopixi (psyche-at-psychopixi-dot-com)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 05:34 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://psychopixi.com
|
|
That is such crap!! What are planning to do next? Ban birth control? Ugh, disgusting little cretins thinking they have the right to dictate how people should live their lives.
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Cashmere on Mar 31, 2003 - 08:27 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Gah, things like this disgust me. Call me kind of idealistic, but I was hoping that our country would go the ways of larger corporations and allow domestic partner clauses. I guess this is score one for the belief that homosexuality and alternative sex practices are not normal and therefore evil.
And where did this hatred and fear of buggery start? I know that most bibles translated in America make specific references to homosexuality as being evil. This would make sense if that was actually what it said, but the specific words used actually translate into something along the lines of pederasty. And this also assumes that the only "evil" homosexuals are men. Just because they have something to insert preattatched makes them less acceptable to lesbians? Or is it because it doesn't satisfy the male porn view of "hot action?"
And what exactly is extramarital? Is it only outside the comfines of marriage? Have you ever wondered why they call it "confines?" Now what if both partners in the marriage were participating with a third? What if it was two males and one female? Would there be a case because of sodomy, or is it within the "confines" of a marriage although there was a third involved?
And the haven't made masturbation illegal yet because that isn't recognised as a form of sex. Neither is oral. I think the definition of sex involved in the united states only involves where you can stick your dick.
And Shade: if they make masturbation illegal, I will be right there with you. I'll make sure to bring a vibrator
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Xaoswolf (Xaoswolfathotmaildotcom)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 10:19 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://Xaoswolf.tripod.com
|
So their neighbors decided they didn't like having a nice gay couple in the neighborhood and did something about it. Remember Salem?
Actually, the person who called the cops was a jealous exlover of one of the men. Forgot where I read that, though so no links.
Not that it makes it any better mind you, just didn't want to make the neighbors look bad when they didn't do it.
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Dolorosa (SixOfSwords@IU.zzn.com)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 05:19 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
|
Ugh...something about that just makes me kind of sick to my stomach. Some shit needs to change...and change powerful bad.
|
I said what now...?
by Monolycus on Mar 31, 2003 - 05:38 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Shade, you will have to refer me to the conversation that you indicated in this post because I do not recall having it in the first place, never mind the particulars. Whatever the finer points of our previous conversation(s) might have been, my position on sex laws (no pun intended) are that they are ridiculous and oppressive and have no place being litigated on a federal level (and I would argue against their being litigated on state and local levels as well). I can not respond to how this impacts a previous conversation that we might have had since you have caught me with my pants down (no pun intended) by invoking my name here in the first place.
I do maintain that sexual predator laws (an entirely different issue than the one addressed by this topic) are a form of sanctioned harassment as the individuals affected by them have theoretically done their time. We pretend that the justice system is based upon the concepts of restitution and rehabilition, although we practice little more than vengeance and vilification. That has extremely little bearing upon the matter at hand.
For the record, the current myth that we have a Constitutional right to what is euphemistically referred to as "privacy" (consensual sex with a partner and in the manner of our choice) is based upon a 1965 Supreme Court ruling (Griswold vs. Connecticut) in which "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms" were ruled by the Supreme Court to be beyond the purview of the government. That precedent was directly responsible for the famous 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling guaranteeing that a woman's right to privacy extended to the right to have an abortion. However, the Supreme Court ignored both of these precedents in 1986 when they upheld the State of Georgia's sodomy laws, stating that the right to privacy did not extend to homosexual behaviour.
We currently have an administration that is actively (albeit covertly) trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (just read the damned newspapers!) which makes their attitude to what the government's rôle in ordinary citizen's "right to privacy" should be frighteningly clear. In 1965, the Supreme Court decided that federal mandates about what private citizens could do with each other was "uncommonly silly", "obviously unenforcable", and "asanine"... but in 1986 their position was 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Do not think that you automatically have a Constitutional "right to privacy"... the majority opinion in 1965 came from Justice William O. Douglas who couldn't find any written rationale for it either, but declared that the right to privacy was to be found in the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, formed by "emanations" of explicit guarantees in the amendments. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something on as tenable ground as that could be reversed with a stroke of the pen by a gathering of justices with a slightly different attitude about what is and is not acceptable for the government to regulate.
I applaude you for bringing this to our attention, Shade, and presume that you mean to fight it. Too many people think that they can rest easily because their rights are written in stone and can not be taken away. You have my assurances that they can and will be taken away with that attitude. If you oppose this latest infringements on your rights, then do something about it. I am, I was, I will be
disgruntled as ever.
~Monolycus.
|
Damn straight.
by Anya (Enternamehere@enterhosthere.net)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 06:16 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu/index2.html
|
Yeah - this stuff sometimes goes too far. Not only do people consider homosexuality and sodomy recluses, they go as far as banning the stuff like it's their business. *shakes head* If being a lesbian or bi-sexual becomes a federal offense, I'm going to be the first to be making out with a girl on the White House. Well...not completely, but I'll be protesting as angrily, more or less.
I tried to look at the part of homosexuality being a sin in the Bible as something...hmm...what to put it like, symbolical; maybe it meant that if the whole world was filled with gays and lesbians the human race would not produce? Oh well - doesn't matter. I just know a lot of these books and scriptures are more symbolical if anything.
Anyway, I'm with you on this subject, Shade.
|
Re: Quick, before they make it illegal
by Sticupus (sticupus@hotmail.com)
on Mar 31, 2003 - 08:01 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.obolisk.com
|
“Speaking for Texas, Harris County District Attorney Charles Rosenthal Jr. said the Lone Star State's ban "does not violate the 14th Amendment ... because the Constitution has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in extra-marital sex."
“The constitution has never recognized... Scary words when you think about it. If you thought the war on Teenagers had too much ammo before today; think again. If this reaches the Supreme Court and they say that no one has the right to extra-marital sex...well, it's a little scary to contemplate.”
This is where I have concern for EVERYONE in the United States. I just want to illustrate how serious this situation can get. Ashcroft is our Attorney General (He is extremely religious- and that‘s an understatement). We have conservatives in office right now. This is dealing with a conservative point of view that homosexuals don’t exist (and if they do they are the devil) and that everyone can wait until marriage to have sex. The states view will become, “if you want sex, you will just have to get married or you are breaking the law“.
Now why would they pass something so crazy? How would they make people conform to something like that? Here is a simple reason I thought up based on the facts I know and a reason they might use.
They are starting a campaign to stop teaching about contraceptives in public schools and ONLY teach abstinence (they are starting it in Florida- Jeb Bush’s state is training wheels for G.W. Bush’s United States. If you don’t believe me: look at the education reform in Florida and the plans for future education). The can consider they younger population as a moldable crowd that can be taught to wait and have morals, and this new precedent will allow them to enforce it by law. And they won’t worry about the older crowd, they are probably, or typically seen, as being married. They are safe from the laws, why should they care? The affects of them passing this law will make the United States citizens to assimilate the new social rules, and it will become a severe moral taboo to have sex out of marriage. Gay rights will be sent into the dark ages, and the morals of the Christian Right will become common hold. Of course that is the scary apocalyptic version of the future, but it’s all possible. If you make something illegal, it will make a large amount of people back off, but or course not all. However this is different than pot or alcohol- this is sex. Sex can involve morals as well as illegalities. Social pressures are more powerful that state laws. Example: People can get into a bar fight with no problem, but how about a fist fight with their grandmother?
People already today feel it is mostly wrong to have sex outside of marriage, or at least sex outside of a monogamous relationship. All that needs is a little social tweaking and that can change. All it needs is a little propaganda and the machine is moving.
It’s extremely difficult to oppose Supreme Court precedent, and may take decades. How will we all oppose it? How do you stop it? Will people change? Will people accept it?
|
Sexuality update
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com)
on Apr 08, 2003 - 12:27 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.hotelshade.com
|
Not necessarily an update, but I think this writer has done a beautiful job of actually describing the issue at hand and some of the results of the pending litigation should it go forth. I am going to email the author and ask if I can "syndicate" him (ie: repost it here as an article under his name if that's cool with Devin as well) But enough with the build up, written by
Alan E. Sears; President, Alliance Defense Fund
Marriage, Sex Offense Laws at Stake in High Court Case
|
Yay! It's legal to have sex!
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com)
on Jun 26, 2003 - 11:31 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.hotelshade.com
|
Here's the story
The Supreme court has overturned the Texas Sodomy law, we'll see where things go from here, but it is a great step forward for individual rights. The article above isn't necessarily the best, it was just the top of the list when I went to new.google.com and searched on " "supreme court" sodomy ".
Just wanted to share the news. Take it easy all!
|
Blah@"moral" bigots.
by Anya (Enternamehere@enterhosthere.net)
on Jul 15, 2003 - 08:54 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu/index2.html
|
|
Was on the news a while back. There was a guy on the news who actually insisted that all this "sexual freedom" and the no peeping Tom stuff means that people can legally child molest behind doors, yada, yada, yada. Man the guys protesting against all these sexual acts would be in shock to see what the Romans and Greeks were allowed to do in their age and day. Ah well.
|
|
|
