Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Dave H]

Hmmm. I stand corrected then. I take it you read the actual 52 page briefing yourself rather than rely on msnbc and cnn to parse it for you.

I've read much of it. (Almost all of the majority opinion and skimmed the other ones.) I also rely on legal blogs like The Volokh Conspiracy (particularly Eugene Volokh's posts; he's a law professor and has been cited a couple times in Supreme Court rulings). And also there was an excellent dialogue last week at Slate between their Supreme Court reporter and some constitutional lawyer (who had filed several briefs in the cases before the Court, including one in the Michigan affirmative action case which IIRC was cited in one of the opinions).

Supreme Court rulings are actually surprisingly readable, I've found, particularly if you know a couple of the relevent buzzwords (in this case, things like "rational basis" for the equal protection clause, and "legitimate state interest" for due process/right to privacy).

 

[zurich]

Wow, can't believe I read the whole thread. It would probably be bad to bump this, but I have to congratulate Natoma for carrying the Torch here.

As to Sabastion.. well, you're quite a work of, well, something. At times like this I just wish to (your) God that you end up the parent of a gay/lesbian kid.

Natoma +1

 

[Sabastian]

Wow, can't believe I read the whole thread. It would probably be bad to bump this, but I have to congratulate Natoma for carrying the Torch here.

As to Sabastion.. well, you're quite a work of, well, something. At times like this I just wish to (your) God that you end up the parent of a gay/lesbian kid.

Natoma +1

Too bad I am not religious nor did I use any religious arguments. Interestingly enough if nonsense the arguments meant to confuse children about their sexual "orientation" get to my children’s ears through the public school system it seems all the more possible that they be confused enough to think that they possibly are unusual. But that isn't likely thanks to my influence on their upbringing and using real logic as opposed to religious arguments in opposition to the behavior of homosexuality so they are well equipped to figure things out for themselves when they are faced with questions about sexuality. It most certainly would be a strange thing to happen should any of my children become a part of a group that actually only accounts for less then 1% of the population. Heh, I guess I wish the same outcome on your children since you are so accepting of it all.

 

[qwerty2000]

I am not trying to be racist it's only my opion. I dont think gays shouldnt be given there rights. Gays shouldnt get married,or apdopt kids. This world was created for men and women to have sex get married etc. Not the same sex

 

[Natoma]

I am not trying to be racist it's only my opion. I dont think gays shouldnt be given there rights. Gays shouldnt get married,or apdopt kids. This world was created for men and women to have sex get married etc. Not the same sex

Uhm, you're not being racist. It's great to know the anti-gay lobby has sterling people like you in their fold.

 

[Legion]

or for that matter that the progay/probisexual lobby have sterling supporters like yourself Natoma. People like you who are willing to explain their beliefs on topics such as "how homosexuality is genetically determined" or "how instincts and drives are the same thing despite different psychological definitions."

 

[Natoma]

or for that matter that the progay/probisexual lobby have sterling supporters like yourself Natoma. People like you who are willing to explain their beliefs on topics such as "how homosexuality is genetically determined" or "how instincts and drives are the same thing despite different psychological definitions."

It's about time you realized that. Glad to know you're starting to read and comprehend.

 

[Legion]

It's about time you realized that. Glad to know you're starting to read and comprehend.

Lol not exactly. Care to explain to me why these things are so?

If i remember it went something like this:

1.i have drives
2.i have sexuality
3.drive activates
3. since i find men attractive my sex drive is affected by sexuality
4. i have sex with men.

One could say the same about paedophiles and people sexually attracted to animals. They must therefore be genetically predestined to be sexually attracted to children and goats.



I think we need to start a lobby for marriage rights for those sexually attracted to other animals and three year olds. Forgoodness sakes if they are genetically predetermined to be this way it ought to be considered legitimate behavior.

Now that we have answered these important questions one must wonder about many other pressing sexual delimas: if people are genetically predetermined to be sexually attracted to people of different races, to women in red dresses, trees and vegetation, moss and fungi, single celled anerobes, cars, card board boxes, and rocks.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

My problem with incest are the very high probability of genetic defects in the offspring. Apparently that's the same problem the government has as well because they allow incestual relationships as long as the relationship is equal to or greater than 2nd cousin, in order to reduce the probability of genetic defects in the offspring.

A recent article in Scientific American had quite an interesting view on this topic. Historically, incest isn't necessarily detrimental to genetics. And, with current genetic screening, it is entirely possible to remove this danger altogether.

I suppose then that in light of this new research you are now completely fine with brother/sister, father/daughter, etc. relationships/marriages?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

...
I suppose then that in light of this new research you are now completely fine with brother/sister, father/daughter, etc. relationships/marriages?

That's sick no matter which way you look at it.

 

[Natoma]

Legion:

Go back to the drawing board and try again.

Bigus Dickus:

I addressed your question earlier in the thread. I suggest you catch up.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

After reading this whole thread, I have just one pressing question:

How precisely is the ability to recognize attractive individuals equated to being attracted to them? I think that is a very misleading argument. You're trying to say that being "aroused" and being "sexually attracted to" are completely different things.

I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that one. I can recognize acttractive features of both men and women, but I'm not attracted to men. I can recognize attractive features of dogs, whether it is a nice sheen on their fur, or well defined muscles, but I'm not attracted to those dogs. I can recognize an attractive peacock, and even predict by looking at several peacocks which a female peacock will likely be attracted to, but that doesn't mean I'm attracted to peacocks. Hell, I can even recognize attractive features of flowers, but I'm surely not attracted to any flower.

You're using attraction clearly in a sexual sense, yet it is clear that a hell of a lot less than 99% of the population are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. They might can appreciate that others would find them attractive, and they might even find them attractive themselves in that they wished they looked more like that person, but that doesn't equate to being attracted to that person.

Perhpaps I'm not being clear enough with my many examples, so here's another approach just in case:

(1) That guy is attractive. I would imagine that many women and gay men would be attracted to that guy, and would like to be with him.

(2) That guy is attractive. I am attracted to him, and would like to be with him.

Huge difference, yet you're equating the two and calling anyone who falls into the first category bisexual. If you read that in a college psychology text, I'd have to say that it was probably written by a gay individual. It wouldn't be the first (or last I'm sure) time I've seen a text with a clear agenda.

So I have to ask... why in the hell would anyone be sexually attracted to someone that they are not sexually aroused by? And if they aren't sexually attracted to them, how could then be considered to be bisexual? I think this is a clear case of one group using statistics to help their own insecurities.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Bigus Dickus:

I addressed your question earlier in the thread. I suggest you catch up.

I love this... if you don't like the subject, you just continually tell people to reread what you've said, as if that actually contained an answer. I think you did precisely the same thing the last time we had a discussion, and it was ultimately futile to continue.

Perhaps you can be a bit more rational this time, and actually answer questions instead of referring people to material that (1) they've already read, and (2) doesn't answe the question.

So I'll restate: current screening methods can negate the increased chance of genetic abnormalities in a child born to mother/son, father/daughter, and brother/sister couples.

Does the US government or State Governments have any basis for retaining laws making these types of marriages illegal? If so, on what basis, seeing as it's no longer genetic?

 

[Natoma]

Bigus Dickus:

I addressed your question earlier in the thread. I suggest you catch up.

I love this... if you don't like the subject, you just continually tell people to reread what you've said, as if that actually contained an answer. I think you did precisely the same thing the last time we had a discussion, and it was ultimately futile to continue.

Perhaps you can be a bit more rational this time, and actually answer questions instead of referring people to material that (1) they've already read, and (2) doesn't answe the question.

So I'll restate: current screening methods can negate the increased chance of genetic abnormalities in a child born to mother/son, father/daughter, and brother/sister couples.

Does the US government or State Governments have any basis for retaining laws making these types of marriages illegal? If so, on what basis, seeing as it's no longer genetic?

Since you're too lazy to read.

I stated that the government outlaws incestual relationships unless you are of the 2nd cousin blood relation or further apart. Why? Because it brings the chance of genetic problems in the offspring down to the level of the general population. Remove the offspring problem from the equation, and the laws against incest become moot in and of themselves, be it through genetic manipulation or sterilization. This is not my standard for incest laws. This is the government of the USA.

I stated this before, in the other thread, and in this one.

I swear someone else is going to come into this thread without reading it, ask me that same question, and when I tell them to read the thread, they'll tell me I'm trying to dodge the question. That's the third time it's happened in this thread already. People are too lazy to read for themselves.

 

[Natoma]

After reading this whole thread, I have just one pressing question:

How precisely is the ability to recognize attractive individuals equated to being attracted to them? I think that is a very misleading argument. You're trying to say that being "aroused" and being "sexually attracted to" are completely different things.

I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that one.

Not surprising since you don't understand what I stated. Re-read it. I stated that arousal and attraction are both part of the sexual response. The sexual response does not equate to having sex, or wishing to have sex. Blushing, for example, is part of the sexual response you know, yet it does not occur in all cases due to sexual arousal.

You're mixing up the terms just like Sabastian was. Frankly it wasn't an easy concept for me to understand when I first learned about it in my Psych 101 course in college, but it certainly makes a lot of sense.

 

[Natoma]

But this is getting away from the central point of the article of this thread. The Supreme Court stated that the Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. So anyone and everyone who has ever given or received any sex that was non-vaginal can rest easy that they won't be arrested.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Since you're too lazy to read.

See what I mean? I read the entire thread, straight through, and your first line of arguing is the tired old "you're too lazy to read." Give me a fucking break dude.

I stated that the government outlaws incestual relationships unless you are of the 2nd cousin blood relation or further apart.

Actually, that's not the case in every state, but that is beside the point.

Remove the offspring problem from the equation, and the laws against incest become moot... This is not my standard for incest laws. This is the government of the USA.

Then you would fully support a proposed legislation making fater/daughter, mother/son, and brother/sister marriages legal?

I swear someone else is going to come into this thread without reading it, ask me that same question, and when I tell them to read the thread, they'll tell me I'm trying to dodge the question. That's the third time it's happened in this thread already. People are too lazy to read for themselves.

Or perhaps you're just to stubborn to accept that some people might have read the entire thread and still find your explanations less than satisfying and a bit short of a logical tour de force.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Not surprising since you don't understand what I stated. Re-read it.

Jesus Natoma, can't you ever make an argument on any other grounds? It gets really, really old. "You didn't understand, you misunderstood, you're too lazy to read, you didn't read, re-read what I wrote and maybe you'll understand."

Try to get this one through your head: I read what you wrote, I understood what you wrote, but I DISAGREE with what you wrote. Sebastian and I aren't mixing up terms, we're disagreeing with the way you and your psych class used them. Your definition of bisexual =! Sebastian and my definition of bisexual. That's ok, people disagree.


You have this serious problem where you automatically assume that anytime someone doesn't agree with your argument it's because they didn't fully read or comprehend it. That presumes that your arguments are always intrinsically correct, or at the very least that they always embody the opinion that everyone else shares.

GET OVER YOURSELF. Sometimes, just somtimes, when people disagree with you it is because they did read and understand your argument, and thought it was as wrong as a football bat.... or a homosexual marriage - take your pick.

 

[Natoma]

Since you're too lazy to read.

See what I mean? I read the entire thread, straight through, and your first line of arguing is the tired old "you're too lazy to read." Give me a fucking break dude.

Obviously not since I went through this same exact thing with Silent_One on page 7 or 8. You may have read the entire thread, but I seriously doubt you actually soaked in the details of the entire thread. IF you had, you wouldn't have even asked this question since it was already asked.

Remove the offspring problem from the equation, and the laws against incest become moot... This is not my standard for incest laws. This is the government of the USA.

Then you would fully support a proposed legislation making fater/daughter, mother/son, and brother/sister marriages legal?

If the risk to the children is no greater than an average risk a random pairing produces, then I could not have any objection, nor could the laws on the books in this country, to a relationship between consenting adults. But that is neither here nor there since there is no such proposed legislation on the books.

I swear someone else is going to come into this thread without reading it, ask me that same question, and when I tell them to read the thread, they'll tell me I'm trying to dodge the question. That's the third time it's happened in this thread already. People are too lazy to read for themselves.

Or perhaps you're just to stubborn to accept that some people might have read the entire thread and still find your explanations less than satisfying and a bit short of a logical tour de force.

When I see the questions/comments you've posted here, and they are the *same exact* ones posed by others, which were resolved pages ago, then yes, I have an issue with repeating myself.

 

[Natoma]

Not surprising since you don't understand what I stated. Re-read it.

Jesus Natoma, can't you ever make an argument on any other grounds? It gets really, really old. "You didn't understand, you misunderstood, you're too lazy to read, you didn't read, re-read what I wrote and maybe you'll understand."

Try to get this one through your head: I read what you wrote, I understood what you wrote, but I DISAGREE with what you wrote. Sebastian and I aren't mixing up terms, we're disagreeing with the way you and your psych class used them. Your definition of bisexual =! Sebastian and my definition of bisexual. That's ok, people disagree.

You can disagree all you like. If you have an issue with what I've stated, take it up with the American Psychiatry Board. Don't get upset with me because your particular "defintion" does not jive with what is scientifically accepted in the Psychiatric community.