dk

Harumi : Well, I was going to reply to dk's false accusations, but Nowhere seems to have done a good job of it already. Thank you.
dk: I agree nowhere did as good job of supporting a position that is indefensible.

Harumi : Now, as for dk's comments I will respond to this:
You have obviously not defined it ad nauseum. I am not the only one who has been demanding that you do define this nonexistent "gay culture". Perhaps, for the sake of our hearts, you might do us all a favor and define it for us clearly.
An example of how you may go about this is shown here:
Gay Culture: <insert definition>
Clear and neat for everyone to see. Now why don't you do that? It will save you from popping a vein, and it will save us from having heart attacks. Don't you want everybody to be happy?
dk: Gay culture might be a group of cells nurtured in a Petri dish, no. Gay culture might be a behavior transmitted socially, no. Gay culture might be the relationship between organisms in a shared ecological habitat, no. Or gay culture might be the theatre, art, language, cloths, literature, museums, music, icons, and movies with which gay communities identify and patronize. Whatever gay culture might be its values are laden with promiscuity and pornographic landscapes.

Harumi: Another thing:
dk: anything for you

Harumi: My health teacher is NOT pro-gay. He is pro-understanding and pro-tolerance.
dk: Why do you think he misspoke about the incidence rate of hiv/aids amongst gays?

Harumi: There is much you can do to learn from him, so back off.
dk: Hey, we all have much to learn from one another.

dk

It’s not my argument, you can't rationalize gay anal sex with heterosexual anal sex. They are essentially the same thing.

Anal sex is wrong because the anus isn't designed for a penis, or any foreign object.
---
Casual contact and anal sex are non sequitur. SARS and hiv/aids (that is primarily spread through MSM) are different diseases with different pathologies. It’s immoral to intentionally spread deadly contagious diseases, especially to people you call loved ones.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

pleasant_darktwist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk


dk: Excellent job at summarizing the pro-homo position before the court. The opposing position tells the federal courts to stay out of state business because powers not granted the federal government are reserved for the states and the people, and the Supreme Court doesn’t represent either the states or the people. In 1960 all 50 states had sodomy laws on the books, and all but 13 have repealed them. This isn’t about sodomy or homosexuality but states rights and democracy.

A: states have rights, but not those that contradict constitutional law, such as singling out a specific group or type for prosecution/persecution by using the law. example:

Amendment 14 to the Constitution of the United States:
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.

So no, It's not a states rights issue, it's an equal protection, personal rights, discrimination issue.


pleasant_darktwist: First of all, homosexuality is the attraction of one pubescent man to another.
dk: Is that why the incidence of hiv/aids rate amongst gays age 13-24 have exploded since HAART treatments came online. What you meant to say was that gay culture publicly presents a “mano y mano” context, that in private expresses a man on boy (post pubescent) proclivity. In fact in an earlier post I detailed one gay teen community center that reported a 25% rate of prostitution, and 100% rate of sexual activity. Isn’t that nice.

13-24 having consensual sex, while it may be illegal for purposes of age (which, btw, applies to both sexes and preferences), it is not pedaphilia.

Oh, and one gay teen community center is NOT a valid sample, bad statistician, bad.

One more thing, if you are against homosexuality, why are you even concerned whether they get aids or not? Doesn't that fit your plan for recapturing the moral rectitude of the United States by homogenizing the population? You would make a certain German very, very proud.

dk: Good point, and I would add that the perpetrators of prepubescent sex crimes are almost always male contradicting mainstream “dial a sexual orientation” theory. Truth stranger than fiction laws against pedophilia are nonexistent, its a sexual disorder like impotence. In fact though women are rarely rapists, they get raped at rates few care to contemplate, much less explain, rape isn’t considered a sex crime. Another contradiction to the “dial a sexual orientation” theory. Judicial activists (socially active jurists) feel morality is unconstitutional, and relies upon the much maligned art of “folk psychology” to determine what crimes are permitted, promulgated and tolerated, and what crimes are deterred.

First, just because the reported perpetrators are male has nothing to do with sodomy laws and consenting adults.
Second, pedophilia is not covered under it's own law, just as rape is not, as such would be redundant, as there are already specifications in other law sections. IE: rape is assault, sexual assault, sexual battery, aggrevated sexual battery, rape, aggrevated rape, and though a different breed, statutory rape (this can occur between consenting parties).
Pedophelia is covered in: Child Abuse, Child endangerment, Rape, Sexual assault, sexual battery, each of those carrying the specifiers of "of a minor," statutory rape, and so on.

And I never mentioned "dial a sexual orientation, again, no words in my mouth, please.

dk: I believe the legal contract specifies a same sex union, and is not recognized by the other 48 states. A case of social legislation from the bench, an end-run through the courts.

On this you may be correct, as I do not currently have documentation, so I digress.

dk: Yah, and in the 19s60s public education was widely proclaimed the crown jewel of the Great Society. 30+ years later public schools are widely regarded to be in crisis, a crisis that flows red from the blood of the wounded, broken and amputated nuclear family. It’s a little early to pronounce the patent dead, and the operation a success.

Whoo, do you right speechs for Pat Buchanan? You should. That is FLAMING rhetoric, meant to antagonize. Public schools have nothing to do with sodomy laws, stay on task. The nuclear family has just evolved, and I submit to you, if the patient is dead, it is by his own hand. There was no operation. I guess it would be, from your perspective, better to use the analogy of cancer, slowly eating away. I'll give you a soft lob there.

And public education is declining for many reasons, not just homosexuals...however you got there, I digress.

dk: I don’t know what to tell you, the nuclear family remains the basic building block of civilization.

What is a family? Why does it have to be 'nuclear' as you define it?

Waiting for your response, dk.

Peace.

Dr Rick

My post did not use anal sex as an argument for rationalizing anything, and vaginal sex is not anal sex. I can't believe I have to explain this.

If part of your argument is that anal sex is wrong because it spreads diseases, then vaginal sex, which spreads far more illnesses (including AIDS), must also be wrong.


That's true only because the human body is not designed at all.

Similarly ridiculous arguements could be made about the mouth not being "designed" for kissing and breasts not being "designed" for fondling.

So why did you bring them up?

No, that's wrong, too: the vast majority or HIV infections were and are still transmitted by heterosexual sex.

That's true; completely irrelevant to this thread, but still true. Intentionally transmitting diseases to people, even to those you don't love, is immoral, whether you do it with anal sex or vaginal sex.

Rick

Kimpatsu

...Or with a syringeful of contaminated blood as a would-be bank robber did, for that matter. Our homophobic correspondent here is implying that when homosexuals do spread STDs, they do it deliberately. This is arrant nonsense. But then, all reaction predicated by dogma is...

dk

dk: In the mid-1980s the SC ruled against the gay plaintiff in favor of states rights, but whatever the court decides in 2003 it will be by a narrow 5-4 simple majority, that could ironically be reversed next year by a simple majority. It amounts to flipping a coin, and each time the Supreme Court changes its mind the institution looses esteem and credibility. This only demonstrates why the founding fathers reserved for the states and people powers not specifically granted the Federal Government.
dk: I have nothing against gay people, in fact you seem to be slow to cozy up too.
dk: So you are of the opinion that women can commit sodomy?

pleasant_darktwist: Second, pedophilia is not covered under it's own law, just as rape is not, as such would be redundant, as there are already specifications in other law sections. IE: rape is assault, sexual assault, sexual battery, aggrevated sexual battery, rape, aggrevated rape, and though a different breed, statutory rape (this can occur between consenting parties).
Pedophelia is covered in: Child Abuse, Child endangerment, Rape, Sexual assault, sexual battery, each of those carrying the specifiers of "of a minor," statutory rape, and so on.
And I never mentioned "dial a sexual orientation, again, no words in my mouth, please.
dk: Sorry, I never meant to imply you did. I meant to emphasize the holes upon which psychology floats authoritative innuendo.

pleasant_darktwist: And public education is declining for many reasons, not just homosexuals...however you got there, I digress. dk: I don’t know what to tell you, the nuclear family remains the basic building block of civilization.
pleasant_darktwist: What is a family? Why does it have to be 'nuclear' as you define it?
Waiting for your response, dk.
dk: The nuclear family is the lowest common self replicating denomination upon which a society can base itself. Mother Russia, Fatherland, Uncle Tom, big brother, ma’s apple pie, founding fathers and kingship are used to construct a symbolic language that stitches together diverse people into the tapestry of civilization.
Peace.

pleasant_darktwist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk
[B]dk: In the mid-1980s the SC ruled against the gay plaintiff in favor of states rights, but whatever the court decides in 2003 it will be by a narrow 5-4 simple majority, that could ironically be reversed next year by a simple majority. It amounts to flipping a coin, and each time the Supreme Court changes its mind the institution looses esteem and credibility. This only demonstrates why the founding fathers reserved for the states and people powers not specifically granted the Federal Government.

DARKTWIST: The fact remains, states cannot use law to discriminate or deny protection of specific groups, based solely on their belonging to that group. Examples could include Jim Crow laws.

dk: I have nothing against gay people, in fact you seem to be slow to cozy up too.

DARKTWIST: My personal opinion of homosexuality is irrelevent to this discussion, as it was, I was merely pointing out that arguments for eliminating certain practices or people for the sake of the 'species' have been made before, IE Hitler.

How do you know I'm not gay, by the way?

dk: So you are of the opinion that women can commit sodomy?

DARKTWIST: If the definition of sodomy requires male sexual organs, then no, women cannot perform sodomy on another person, but may in fact be sodomized. However, with the help of toys and other sexual aides, women could definately be capable of anal penetration of another being. Though, why this is an issue is beyond my grasp.

pleasant_darktwist: Second, pedophilia is not covered under it's own law, just as rape is not, as such would be redundant, as there are already specifications in other law sections. IE: rape is assault, sexual assault, sexual battery, aggrevated sexual battery, rape, aggrevated rape, and though a different breed, statutory rape (this can occur between consenting parties).
Pedophelia is covered in: Child Abuse, Child endangerment, Rape, Sexual assault, sexual battery, each of those carrying the specifiers of "of a minor," statutory rape, and so on.
And I never mentioned "dial a sexual orientation, again, no words in my mouth, please.
dk: Sorry, I never meant to imply you did. I meant to emphasize the holes upon which psychology floats authoritative innuendo.

DARKTWIST: Fair enough.

pleasant_darktwist: And public education is declining for many reasons, not just homosexuals...however you got there, I digress. dk: I don’t know what to tell you, the nuclear family remains the basic building block of civilization.
pleasant_darktwist: What is a family? Why does it have to be 'nuclear' as you define it?
Waiting for your response, dk.
dk: The nuclear family is the lowest common self replicating denomination upon which a society can base itself. Mother Russia, Fatherland, Uncle Tom, big brother, ma’s apple pie, founding fathers and kingship are used to construct a symbolic language that stitches together diverse people into the tapestry of civilization.

DARKTWIST: The nuclear family has only been a model because of the way humanity developed. The strong protected the weak. A man and a woman were required for reproduction. Children became assets for family protection and development. Kind of like a prehistoric worker state, where the prolitariet (sp) is reproduced from its own kind.

Over time, technology and certain social changes (like women entering the work place in record numbers, sexual liberation, affirmative action, etc.), have allowed persons to develop families that are non-nuclear. Single mothers, interracial couples, homosexual couples, etc.

These things have developed because our advanced society is not dependent on 'Man Get Food, Woman make babies' 'Children good for gathering and protecting home, and aged parents.'

Much of this line of thinking can be found among the poor people of third world countries, where they are farmers, hunter-gatherers and nomads. A couple produces children, each child that lives contributes to the survival of the family. That is why the 'nuclear family' is self-replicating, and in some ways, natural. However, just because this may be natural, does not mean that it is healthy. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, perhaps these permutations of the term 'family' are a sign of advancement and not decline.

Peace.

Harumi

Alrighty then. This is gay culture?

Prove it. Give evidence for your reasons into thinking that it is laden with pornographic landscapes.

Marz Blak

Forgive me if someone else has already pointed this out--the thread was too long by the time I happened across it to read its entire length--but it seems to me that Thomas' argument misses the point right off the bat.

All this talk about the law as a proxy for social/societal approbation is well and fine, and worth debating. But as I understand it, this is completely beside the point as regards the legal issue before the Courts.

As I understand it, the objection to homosexual sodomy laws which has been upheld in courts is that they violate the 'equal protection' provisions of the constitution.

Acts defined as 'sodomy'--anal and oral sex, again, as I understand it--are equally capable of being performed by heterosexual and homosexual couples.

This being the case, any law which bans homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy is inherently discriminatory.

The jurisdictions which want to bar homosexual sodomy could bar all sodomy then, except for the fact that, again as I understand it, the courts have held that generic sodomy laws are unconstitutional, on the grounds that their inforcement necessitates an unwarranted invasion of individuals' privacy by the state.

It is the combination of these two findings which puts the permissibility of gender-specific sodomy laws in doubt from a legal point of view.

Marz Blak

Duplicate post. I was going to withdraw the prior post, as I see that my point has been touched upon in the thread; but on reflection I decided to post it anyway, as I feel that some of the arguments here, while certainly worthwhile, have gone off on a tangent which is based on what I believe to be an essential irrelevancy of Thomas' column to the legal issue embodied in the case. And I felt compelled to make the prior post, its lack of originality notwithstanding, as a way of emphasizing my belief that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to clarify the law and ensure its reconciliation to the principles embedded in the Constitution, not to function as some super-ordinary arbiter/creator of social policy.

After all, that's the wrap the conservatives laid on the Court for years prior to its current constitution, right? Ironic, isn't it?