Mbwuto

I read this on plastic.com and thought I should share a humorous, and interesting situation with you all

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44524.htm

And a letter from the questioner

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespac...ement_fro.html

So, the real question here, despite all the humorous hype, is whether Scalia should be vilified for his views on homosexuality. I know the kneejerk response is that since he hates gays, we should in turn hate him for his bigotry. That doesn't fly well with me. I know a lot of people with backwards ass views that I love despite them.

The remark was made in regards to this case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=02-102

Scalia was not the only judge to uphold the Sodomy laws in Texas. Another judge(Thomas?) also ruled the law as constitutional while at the same time decrying it.

Could it be possible that the laws themselves are constitutional while at the time being immoral and fruitless? Possible. But the real question is whether or not Scalia supported the law based only on Constitutionality(is that even a legitimate word?)

From his dissenting opinion

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."

What I did find interesting was that Scalia implied that allowing legal homosexual conduct might also allow homosexual marriage(later in the dissent).

So, while I am somewhat loathe to bring up the brush fire that is gay rights, what do you think of Scalia and his opinion? Do you think the Constitution grants a right to sexual freedom? Do you think asking Scalia whether or not he sodomizes Mrs. Scalia was fair?

For the record, I don't think the Constitution, as written and interpreted by the writers, grants any sexual freedom. After all, all states had sodomy laws on the books until 1961. Many even put folks to death. Whether or not you can tease out the right is somewhat inconsequential to me given the original intent. Perhaps an amendment is in order...BWAHAHAHA! Whew. We all know the likelihood of that given the current power structure.

I also think the question was entirely fair, but still very contemptous. It had no real point other than illustrating a perfectly rational point, but it did it so eloquently! I'm not sure Scalia should be vilified for his ruling though. His job is not to be an arbiter of culture or customs, only to rule according to the Constitution.

__________________
- people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent.

George Orwell

arch13

Exactly.
Courts function in a time frame outside what must of us even perceive.
They are there for the ages, and must act with the patientce that calls for.

That is why I just laugh till I cry about Delay recently. His want to change the judiciary is far beyond the power of congress, as the judiciary is not there ti serve popular opinion whether it be about sodomy or brain damage. Rather, the juducuary is there to interprete the law. Congress makes the laws, lower judges interprete them when asked (with careful patience and study I might add), and the SCOTUS decides if a law is legal to be interpreted.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

guy44

Blech. Scalia should be pitied and despised for his views regarding homosexuality, though I fall short of advocating hate. I mean...ok, he said:

"I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so."

Let's change a phrase.

"I would no more require a State to criminalize slavery--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so."

Sodomy laws are an outrageous intrusion of the government into the right of individuals to have control over their own bodies. Obviously, it is not as bad as slavery, but in a far more limited sense, it is analogous.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

Why should he be either pitied or despised? His views are as valid as any.


If you change the phrase, the meaning is changed.

It's not analogous at all. They are two different things entirely. Trying to falsely link his comments to ones that support slavery is disengenuous. I could just as easily say that child molestation, polygamy, narcotic, or domestic abuse laws are outrageous intrusions of the government, but that doesn't make it so.

guy44

alansmithee, my point is that because the right to engage in gay sex or sodomy is NOT a bad thing, unlike child molestation or domestic abuse, sodomy laws are overly intrusive. The question isn't whether the government has any right to interfere with individuals, but where we draw the line. We once allowed slavery; we've since drawn the line past that. And I'm saying that any decent human being would place that line beyond the place where sodomy laws exist.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

And my point is that your line is arbitrary and has no more merit than any other point. I think that many decent people could easily be in favor of banning sodomy, just as decent people are in favor of banning child molestation. The issue isn't as decided as you (and others) would like it to be.

guy44

Just because others hold archaic and fundamentally bigoted views regarding homosexuality and sodomy does not mean that the issue hasn't been decided. I'm quite confident that 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will wonder how society could have possibly discriminated against gays just as I wonder how society could have enacted Jim Crow laws.

Oh, and you are right that the line is arbitrary. It always is. I'm just setting it at where society should be putting it.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

You can say it's archaic and bigoted all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true. This is your opinion, there is no fact involved whatsoever.

Wow, prophesising and self-righteous moralizing? How is this any different than the fundamentalist Christians trying to force their views on society? Oh, wait. It isn't.

Kadath

I will never understand people who are in favor of banning blowjobs.

I would argue that many "decent" (whatever that means) people have been in favor of bad things as well as good -- slavery, Germany's attempts at world domination, etc.

__________________
it's quiet in here

pan6467

Just a little tidbit for those who believe the Religious Right's rhetoric of how sodomy is evil and should be regulated by government.

The USUCOJ (United States Uniform Code of Justice) states that any sexual position other than that of missionary male and female is illegal and reason to be courtmartialed. Plus, if you have sex with someone other than your wife and she claims rape...... you should be court martialed and death should be the penalty. Kind of like the cases you are out with the g/f she gets scared as you enter and calls rape....... according to the USUCOJ it is rape and the punishment is death.

We learned that in bootcamp. Is it enforced? No. However, they made sure we knew the rule was there.

It amazes me how many Republicans in office, on these boards, on the airwaves and in life want to hit others with judgements on their private lives and pass "marals" laws.... and yet, they have no idea nor care, that the "69" position , or the lady on top, or the various positions they do is considered illegal also.

It amazes me that sex is even an issue that our government feels it needs to spend money trying to legislate. Money that could be sent to schools, healthcare whatever.

I remember in the 90's Limbaugh stating almost every day that you could not regulate or legislate morals and yet the right is doing so and he is pushhing that agenda.

Amazing. true Conservative Republicans have been hornswaggled by the religious right into believing that their form of less government is less intrusive, and morally correct. Yet, it is still laws that are costing billions legislated against the moral rights of man.

==============================================================

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...IVE%20ARTICLES

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

guy44

The difference is that fundamentalist Christians want to force their views down others' throats. They would limit others' right to engage in gay sex or have a nice blow job every now and then. Whereas I would allow people to engage in such activities, as well as allow fundamentalist Christians to practice their beliefs.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Cynthetiq

and he's setting it where HE thinks society should be putting it. He's also been given the power and authority to set it as such.

Your last statement validates the aruguments of all fanatics and intolerant people.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

alansmithee

Decent wasn't my word, btw. The point I was going for was that wanting to "ban blowjobs" doesn't inherently make someone a person to be "pitied and despised". It doesn't matter if you understand them-they have views just as valid as yours.

But YOU are forcing views down other people's throats-the view that sodomy laws are wrong, and that people who should support them should be looked down upon. Since apparenlty not being able to have gay sex is the same as being a slave , I'm sure many slaveowners didn't think it was right for the views of abolitionists to be forced down their throats. Again, there is no difference between you and the fundamentalists. They are also setting the line "where society should be putting it".

Manx

That is a ridiculous statement that can only be made with a straight face if you truly do not see the difference between preventing someone else from doing something that has nothing to do with you and preventing someone else from preventing someone else from doing something that has nothing to do with them.

In other words - some couple somewhere practicing gay sex does not affect me. If I feel the need to prevent that couple from practicing gay sex, I am being unreasonable. If it is your goal to prevent me from being able to prevent that couple from practicing gay sex, you are not being unreasonable.

Now it's up to you to recognize the difference between those positions.

guy44

Manx explained perfectly the difference between my position and that of fundamentalist Christians. I don't have anything to add to that.

With regards to the allowed/disallowed line, of course that line is arbitrary. Just because I say that it can be set anywhere by society doesn't mean that it should be. I'm just saying, as society changes, so changes the general agreement as to where that line should be. Unfortunately, in some societies you get slavery, in others marijuana is legalized, in others prostitution is legal. I'm just saying that society will do what it will. I'm not trying to justify maniacs and totalitarian rules, just explaining how they come about.

alansmithee, please don't knowingly mischaracterize my arguments. You know full well that I never said that "not being able to have gay sex is the same as being a slave." Rather, I said that just as society once allowed slavery, then decided that slavery was unacceptable, America should move beyond disallowing gay sex/sodomy to allowing it. I think it is abundantly clear that I never said that not being allowed to have gay sex is the same thing as slavery, and to posit otherwise is to create a pathetic straw man argument.

Lastly, you wrote, "I'm sure many slaveowners didn't think it was right for the views of abolitionists to be forced down their throats. Again, there is no difference between you and the fundamentalists."

Well, I'd get into the obvious difference between how allowing someone to own a slave infringes on the rights of another while allowing others to have sex in no way harms those fundamentalist Christian prudes, but a far more immediate development comes to mind.

For example, I don't have any problem that abolitionists forced their views on slaveowners. Do you?

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

You are 100% wrong. Someone having their car stolen across the country doesn't affect you. Someone having sex with a 9 year old across the country does not affect you. Someone beating his wife in another city does not affect you. If something affecting you is the only standard, should those things be allowed?

I totally support abolitionists forcing their views on slaveowners. Just like I support a community choosing to ban sodomy, if that's what they desire. I also don't see how someone could on moral grounds say that Scalia should be "pitied and despised" for his views. I was showing that that sounds like the same rhetoric that is often attributed to fundamentalists, and it also stems from the same supposedly morally superior grounds.

But the issue wasn't what I think. I have stated in other threads that I supported the ruling. I don't think that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, or even wrong. I just find that the cost of implementation of those laws in a fair manner outweighs any possible gain to society, so they had to go. But I think that Scalia's dissent was correct. I just tend not to put as much weight on the constitutionality of a law or decision if I think that the outcome is for the best.

filtherton

That seems a questionable comparison. Though maybe manx wasn't explicit in this, i do believe he was in fact refering to the idea that the ability for two men or two women engaging in legal consensual sexual relations has absolutely zero effect on either your quality of life, or the quality of lives of members of society as a whole. Depending on your perspective it could be and is argued that car thieves and child molesters do have a malignant effect on society. If you have an argument as to why blowjobs and anal sex have a malignant effect on society, by all means share it with us. Otherwise admit that what two consenting adults do in private has absolutely nothing to do with how you live your life.

Manx

No, I'm not 100% wrong. You are simply attempting to establish analogies which, when given even the smallest amount of thought, are clearly unrelated.

An adult having sex with an another adult, across the country from you, next door to you, doesn't affect you. Period. You cannot compare that scenario to incest, rape, murder, theft, etc (all of which involve a non-consentual relationship) and maintain a sense of rationality. As long as you choose to eschew rationality, there seems little point in discussing anything rational with you.