The Other Michael

Captain Pedantic and others, you need to remember that in MF&P we expect you to engage in civil discussion. Feel free to attack the arguments all you like, but refrain from personal attacks/insults.

CP, I edited your post as it looked like you'd have been unable to do it due to the 2 hour time limit having run (or nearly run). Otherwise, I'd have had you do it.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Captain Pedantic

I was angry and often type nasty things when I'm angry.

I am sorry if I caused you offence, but I am not sorry if I caused dk offence, since I was very offended by what he wrote. I apologise to you, however, for forgetting the rules of the MF&P board.

dk

dk: Exactly, you don’t care one hoot about families. It makes no sense to me. I can’t understand a person that doesn’t care about family.
dk: I hope this doesn’t shock you, but the media targets kids, and about 50% of the time, the home in which a child is raised, is selected by a judge.
----------

BrotherMan: If you want to start down the road of trying to expain whom it is okay to hate (make no mistake, that is at the heart of this), feel free. Just don't be surprised by the responses you get.
dk: Slapping a “don’t hate” label on one side of a controversy issue is fallacious. Because we disagree doesn’t mean you hate me, or I hate you.
dk: Gay culture views pornography as art and orders their community’s identity with promiscuous sex. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the gay community suffers so horribly from HIV/AIDs.
dk: Deviant in the sense that psycholinguistics engineer speech to instill children with deviant sexual values.
----------------------[*]BrotherMan::I state that a loving, sexual relationship between any two consenting adults is normal for them.
dk: Then we should be able to agree that gay culture is deviant.
dk: Ohhhhh, so the cure for raped and pregnant teenagers is gay sex, a “hair of the dog” remedy.
dk: Ohhhh, so promiscuous heterosexual elements justify promiscuous gay elements. Do you also think gang violence justifies mob violence? or child abuse justifies domestic abuse? Corrupt police justify corrupt corporations? What you’re offering is a rationalization for unacceptable conduct.
dk: If it comes down to the “Liberty of gays” and the “freedom of youngsters”, I have to go with the freedom of youngsters. I’ve already accepted that my liberty ends where the freedom of others begin. The presence of gay culture in the public square corrupts youth. The disproportionate number of youths, especially gay youths, infected by stds makes the point clear. Any other supposition would be unjustified.
dk: Freedom allows people safe access to the public square, so society has an obligation to make the public square safe for young people.
dk: I’m surprised to hear we agree. Since gay culture and pornography have so much in commont they should be deterred or zoned in the public square. That was easy.

Jamie_L

Getting back to the notion of the anti-sodomy law:

This thread has gone back and forth about issues of homosexuality and its impacts on society. However, that's different from the effects of an anti-sodomy law on society.

Does an anti-sodomy law have any significant impact on:
The level of homosexuality in the community?
The media representation of homosexuality in the community?
The acceptability of homosexuality in the community?

I say, no.

How many gay people think to themselves: "You know, I think I'll be straight instead, because I don't want to get arrested for sodomy?"

How many people want to support gay rights, but don't because sodomy is illegal?

This law has virtually no impact on society at large, only on a handful of unlucky individuals who get caught in the act. And is that something we want to devote our law enforcement and judicial system resources to? Processing and prosecuting a couple of guys every year for minding their own business and having "illegal" sex out of the public eye?

I'm sorry, but if I lived in Texas, I'd want to have that portion of my tax money returned to me.

Jamie

TomboyMom

It's hard to know where to begin with dk and this kind of fuzzy, confused, bigoted thinking, not to mention spelling.
dk-you are conflating homosexuality, anal sex, homosexual marriage and pedophilia. A moment's reflection should help you see that these are distinct, although related. Also you freely extend prejudices to all members of any group. For example, because some gay men want to have sex with teenage boys, you draw many conclusions about gay people in general. Hey, probably the same proportion of heterosexual men want to have sex with teenage girls, but that does not justify limiting the rights of all heterosexual men. (or does it?) Certainly, by your logic, the rights of Catholic presists should be severely restricted, as there is such a danger from permitting them to have access to boys.

However, your list of idee fixees does not seem to include lesbians at all, which I speculate is because women are not important in your world view. None of the exagerrated stereotypes of homosexuals you are blowing around apply to lesbians at all. They do apply more to heterosexuals than to lesbians, in fact, so by your logic again lesbians as a group should have greater rights and status than heterosexuals?

My point is that individuals should not be discriminated against because of the predilictions of some members of a group to which they belong. For example, just because some christians are mass murderers, we should not discriminate against all christians. (or should we?)

Philosoft asks: How does allowing homosexuals to marry each other endanger the existing or potential relationships of heterosexuals?

This has nothing to do with AIDS or pedophilia. Using myself as an example: I am a lesbian. I am in a ten-year committed relationship, and I have 3 children. I am not promiscuous, have no interest in sex with children and am HIV negative. (as are almost all lesbians.) How would giving me and Katherine the right to be married to each other have any impact whatsoever on the rights of heterosexual people with regard to their marriage? We're not trying to take anything away from them.

It's a similar way of thinking (using the word "thinking" loosely) as the attitude of religious fundamentalists toward atheists. They tend to feel threatened by someone who believes differently from them, and want to restrict our rights as somehow endangering theirs.

Be honest dk, it's not really about AIDS or pedophilia. You are against homosexuals because you believe that homosexual behavior is prohibited by your religion, and you and the author of the op-ed piece believe that it is acceptable to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us, even if we do not share them.

The rest of us are trying to defend our liberty against your fundamentalist totalitarianism. It is you and those like you who threaten the rights of the rest of society, and not the other way around.

:banghead:

Mageth

I'm sorry, but if I lived in Texas, I'd want to have that portion of my tax money returned to me.

Actually, the Texas Sodomy law is very seldom applied, and is a "dinosaur" that we've needed off the books for years (shouldn't have ever been there in the first place). In spite of DK's limiting gays mostly to LA, SF, and NYC, Houston has one of the larger gay/lesbian populations in the country, and has for years. Austin has a significant gay/lesbian population, as well.

Jamie_L

As are just about all sodomy laws, and in many places they are off the books. Which is why it strikes me as so odd that Texas has appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court. Why fight so hard for a dinosaur of a law that never gets enforced? And if it almost never gets enforced, how is the law in any way impacting society?

Jamie

Mageth

Agreed. The Texas Gov't is wasting a lot of money and time on this. Remember, our former governor was the Shrub, and our current gov (Rick Perry) is at least as much a fundie xian as Dubya. He made legalizing school prayer a campaign issue in 2001. When asked about the issue, he responded "Why not?They took it out. They can sure put it back in."

Treacle Worshipper

Y'know, sometimes I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. Then I just wish people would get educated, or at least live & let live.
Sometimes I think I'm glad not to live in the US, where there seems to be so much hatred & misunderstanding of gays, but then I remember that Old Man lives in England & he thinks I should be executed.

I really don't see how gay marriage threatens het marriage at all. And surely providing a recognised framework for gay relationships would help gays to be more responsible in our relationships because we wouldn't have to feel like hiding all the time. (I'm out, and I still feel like hiding some of the time.)

TomboyMom, good post

Originally posted by lisarea
I was hit on the head by a bingo board and that turned me into a big lesbian.
Ah, so that's my problem! Mum (accidentally) hit me over the head with a shovel when I was 2 & 1/2. Suddenly, I've seen the source of all my problems! *runs off to find another shovel & knock some sense in*
TW

dk

dk: Sodomy laws are infrequently enforced. In 1960 every state had a sodomy law, and today sodomy laws remain on the books of 13 states. The state of Texas says the law is about states rights to enforce moral standards, and the gays say there 14th Amendment privacy rights are violated, and sodomy laws make them second class citizens. A quick side note, someone reported a phony weapons disturbance at the home of John Lawrence to summon the police. I don’t care how passionate the moment, its inconceivable police breaking down the door wouldn’t interrupt the dirty deed. Therefore I think its quite possible John Lawrence and Garner orchestrated their own arrest to make a federal case. Lawrence and his buddy were fined $200.00 violating Texas’s anti-sodomy law.
To questions 1-3 the answer is possibly, but the issue is states rights. not homosexuals. It’s an abusive of power for the federal courts to usurp state governments. The courts are sworn to uphold the constitution not rewrite it. Thirty seven states repealed sodomy laws, its a state matter and should be left to state governments.
Question 4 has no baring on the case. The state can repeal the law.
Question 5 has no baring on the case. The state can repeal the law.