It wouldn't surprise me if in some states its a crime taking it up the rear so its not really anything new. Actually here is some info
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html
Tenn. county wants to ban gays
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Ok, just to be a bit uncharacteristically un-silly in this thread, just what in the heck do they DO once they determine they're gay and arrest them for crimes against nature?
What is the penalty for that particular crime? Do they have to stop being gay or do they have to apologize to nature? :|
(Nope, couldn't keep it non-silly...I blame it on all that damned happiness inside me again!)
What is the penalty for that particular crime? Do they have to stop being gay or do they have to apologize to nature? :|
(Nope, couldn't keep it non-silly...I blame it on all that damned happiness inside me again!)
a few months ago the one of the last few states to even have sodomy laws (texas) was challenged by the supreme court. They lost, and in effect all sodomy laws were struck down.bloodbob said:
later,
epic
Im curious, if a clear majority (lets say 80+%) of people want homophobic laws, why cant they have it??? You can always leave that city/state/country. Im not for banning gays, but it seems to me that if you live in a democracysytaylor said:Friendly reminder to those trying to pass any homophobic laws..
ITS 2004!!!
roll, the majority should be able to pass laws they want, changing the constitution when necessary.later,
epic
sytaylor said:Friendly reminder to those trying to pass any homophobic laws..
ITS 2004!!!
Does it matter if its 2004 bc , 2004 ad or 20004 ad . If the people feel this is the way to go then that is the way this country will go. As it should be. Now if the people are wrong or right I don't know about that . But i guess only time will tell .
epicstruggle said:Im curious, if a clear majority (lets say 80+%) of people want homophobic laws, why cant they have it??? You can always leave that city/state/country. Im not for banning gays, but it seems to me that if you live in a democracysytaylor said:Friendly reminder to those trying to pass any homophobic laws..
ITS 2004!!!
later,
epic
The majority would also LOVE to have a law that abolishes tax.
As i said in previous threads, "the people" are stupid as a whole.
now, to get back to topic, THIS WOULD MAKE FOR A RIGHT FUN PORN MOVIE.... I mean, the way they're gonna assess the gayness of Kevin [there's always a cute Kevin in any self-respecting gay porn movie], the location, the cops, the prison! Errrr...
As i said in previous threads, "the people" are stupid as a whole.
now, to get back to topic, THIS WOULD MAKE FOR A RIGHT FUN PORN MOVIE.... I mean, the way they're gonna assess the gayness of Kevin [there's always a cute Kevin in any self-respecting gay porn movie], the location, the cops, the prison! Errrr...
Something has to define what rights you have, either god or a piece of paper(constitution). At any point in a democracy you can redefine what rights any group of people have.kyleb said:
later,
epic
ps the founding fathers specifically didnt go with a democracy because:
democracy == MOBocracy
epicstruggle said:Something has to define what rights you have, either god or a piece of paper(constitution). At any point in a democracy you can redefine what rights any group of people have.
later,
epic
ps the founding fathers specifically didnt go with a democracy because:
democracy == MOBocracy
Phew I'm so glad republics never change or amend their constitutions to redefine what rights any group of people have. :?
the reply to your quote is found within this quote. see if you can find it.Florin said:
if you cant ill bold it in a few hours. later,
epic
epicstruggle said:Im curious, if a clear majority (lets say 80+%) of people want homophobic laws, why cant they have it??? You can always leave that city/state/country. Im not for banning gays, but it seems to me that if you live in a democracysytaylor said:Friendly reminder to those trying to pass any homophobic laws..
ITS 2004!!!
later,
epic
Where the didly crap did you get the idea that democracy = majority rule? Democracy is the balance between individual freedoms and the society. Its a balance that the judicial system exists to keep. The average person has no clue about the complexities of society, and the depths to which real issues go. People love a black and white "they're bad, we're good" because its easy to swallow.
Democracy is a balance, of indivdual freedoms balanced with law and fariness for all. How does marginalising one group achieve this? My point about 2004 is that we're not living in caves fighting with the group 2 miles away for limited food resources. We're trying to build a fair society, but it seems 80+ % or so of humans are incapeable of grasping that.
democracy: 4. Majority rule.
source dictionary.com
epic
source dictionary.com
epic
epicstruggle said:the reply to your quote is found within this quote. see if you can find it.
You can spell it out, if you want. For now, I maintain that the distinction between a democracy and a republic as you see it is not as cut and dried.
I'd say I know I don't, but I've never tried it. However, the thought of it repulses me. With a man, or woman, anal sex is just plain filthy (in the literal way) to me.FUDie said:LOL, Russ, what if you enjoy it?RussSchultz said:Meh. Poke em all up the butt and see who enjoys it.
i love these 2 quotes from alixander hamilton.
"There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly."
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
later
epic
"There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly."
"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
later
epic
I picked my definition, you yours. To each his own.sytaylor said:
later,
epic
Not necessarily, but i digress...RussSchultz said:
epicstruggle said:I picked my definition, you yours. To each his own.
later,
epic
So your initial attack on my point was based on a blinkered view of a democratic system? Or is the judicial system simply a myth in every nation that can't be called a replublic (like say Britain)?