Title Change - "Two gay men in Texas fined for having sex"

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster


<< Czar finally found the legal document about the case and it states quite clearly, the police followed the law PERIOD. Now if you disagree with that law, thats another story. >>


I am not saying that the police did anything wrong, this thread is about the laws being wrong and most of all stupid. There are plenty of stupid laws that are "laws" but no one enforces them. Like here in iceland, there is a law about it being illegal to be drunk in public, but its a stupid law and no one follows them. >>



There are many practices in law I find "stupid" that you would agree with. Thats your opinion about that law, nothing more.

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<<

<< Thankfully the US supreme court will more than likely overturn this conviction. >>



Amused One. Please READ the legal briefing before writing your opinion.

Police were responding to a report of an armed intruder they found the couple engaged in homosexual sex.

They were arrested BY LAW. Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Law.

Now you may disagree with the LAW on the books, but police had every LEGAL right to do what they did. >>



Tex, did I say it was the police I disagree with? Of course I disagree with the law. Hopefully, the US Supreme Court will, too. State law is not automatically Constitutional.

Calm down. >>




I'm very calm. And yes you did say you disagreed with the police if you believe this conviction should be overturned. Its the LAW in Texas and in many other states as well. >>



No, Tex. The US Supreme Court can overturn convictions if the state law is unconstitutional. The police have nothing to do with this, as it is not up to them to determine the constitutionality of laws, only enforce them. The Texas State legislature, and Texas Supreme Court does. If they can't follow the Constitution, hopefully the US Supreme Court can.

 

[Czar]

Texmaster,

I did update the the post, you were suggesting that this news story was false because the site it was on, I provided another link.

But it seems we are going for a different target. You are saying the police did nothing wrong and I´m saying the laws are wrong.


GTaudiophile,
I have a friend who is extremely christian who was worried to death about me not going to heaven because i´m an athiest. But we are over all that now and accept one another like we are.
I live in stinking iceland and most people here are liberals, the only "conseratives" or "christians" here are old people (above 50) the others are an exception. Sure blame me for society.

 

[Pliablemoose]

My Public Service Announcement for the day (the transmission modes are presented in order of prevelance):

In the United States, the primary modes of transmission are men having sex with men, intravenous drug use with HIV-contaminated needles and heterosexual exposure, primarily through sexual contact with injecting drug users. "There's no evidence communities of color use drugs any more frequently than the majority population, but they are certainly more likely to be poor, to be homeless and to share dirty needles."



HIV infection cases¹ by age group, exposure category, and sex per the CDC

Looks like gay men still win the prize or a higher rate of infection, with a cumulative 7% of HIV transmitted in the US by heterosexual sex. Only disclaimer is that IV drug abusers lie about their behaviors & I suspect they're under-represented & inaccurately raise the hetrosexual %

 

[Texmaster]

<< No, Tex. The US Supreme Court can overturn convictions if the state law is unconstitutional. The police have nothing to do with this, as it is not up to them to determine the constitutionality of laws, only enforce them. The Texas State legislature, and Texas Supreme Court does. If they can't follow the Constitution, hopefully the US Supreme Court can. >>



Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact.

 

[potatosalad]

<< Seriously though, I know you all have your opinions, and yes, statistically gays seem to be more at risk...but it isn't the homosexuality that does it, it's the promiscuity >>



The two go hand in hand.

Statistically, the percentage of monogamous homosexual men are negligible.

Therefore, promiscuity and homosexuality strongly correlate. I will not say that one causes the other, because that would be an unwarranted leap of logic. But show me a gay man, and I can safely say with 95% certainty that he is promiscuous.

I will not talk about lesbians because I have not seen any studies on them.

In any case, there is no equivalent risk of AIDS associated with lesbian sex.

 

[JonnyDuke]

Well true, things do take time but I did think that there was a resolution to this case a while ago, I don't know for certain.

As to the Police only following the law... except in the case of a want or warrant which is a specific request by a court to arrest the person it applies to, on scene Police officers are allowed a measurable leeway... they don't HAVE to arrest someone JUST because the person broke the law
but they might if the person fails the "personality test" . If you are caught and the cop can let you go with a warning, s/he may do that... but if you come off with an attitude like you know everything and piss off the cop, guess what...you'll lose. Oh, sure you may get to court and have charges dropped or just have to pay
a fee for tying up the court with your case, but in the end you still lose. Time, effort, money, credability (maybe) $125 is very little compared to a real charge of assault or some others.

BTW I don't agree with the fact that the law exists but knowing that it does means you have to be careful not to put yourself in the position of getting caught breaking it until it no longer is there. And fight to have it removed.

 

[Czar]

<<

<< Ok then you are out of the image of hating gays. >>




LOL What like I need your approval?

This is CLASSIC liberal elitism right here, thinking I need your blessing before proving I'm not a bigot. LOL



<< I have on friend who lives in the US, who is extremely christian and doesnt care much about politics or being liberal or conservatives. Not my fault everyone I meet is liberal. >>



LOL I rest my case.




<< I´m not hateful about people disagreeing with me, I want people to disagree with me and I want people to agree with me. But this is not about agreeing or disagreeing this is about basic human rights, that all are equal. >>



So you are NOT friends with people who have vastly different opinions than yours what a shocker.

On the tolerant scale, you have a long way to go. >>



Wow, talking about making assumptions and filling in blanks with what you belive yourself instead of listening, this amazes me. I´m not even going to defend this stupid response.

 

[Czar]

<< Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact. >>



This is what is called discrimation, it would be the same as if banning blacks to have sex, does that make sense to you?

 

[PrinceofWands]

" if you believe this conviction should be overturned. Its the LAW in Texas and in many other states as well."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! There are laws about carrying ice cream cones in your pocket, about things nobody uses, about things that have changed...laws in many states the same. Should these be followed??? Of course not, they should be removed. But they never are. Because our legal system is severely flawed. The way to get laws changed is to just do what's right, and when you are arrested for it, fight...fight till you reach the supreme court and let them change it. Fight to the death. And scream about your battle from every mountain...let everyone know what's happening.

Everyone has a responsibility to do this. Everyone has to stand up to true injustice wherever they find it, and fight it to the end. That's how change is made...that's how progress is achieved. Of course the police were just following the law, but if they support it, then they're WRONG! They need to be right there next to these men as they go to the supreme court, fighting for justice. Not fighting for homosexuality, which would be the wrong fight, but fighting for individual rights. That's what this is about, not laws, but rights.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< No, Tex. The US Supreme Court can overturn convictions if the state law is unconstitutional. The police have nothing to do with this, as it is not up to them to determine the constitutionality of laws, only enforce them. The Texas State legislature, and Texas Supreme Court does. If they can't follow the Constitution, hopefully the US Supreme Court can. >>



Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact. >>



Tex :::sigh::: A law is not automatically constitutional. The US Supreme Court has overturned countless state laws as unconstitutional, and can very well do so here.

No, there is no specific protection of homosexuals in the Constitution, but there IS a specific right to privacy, and the right to pursue happiness. Any law that regulates consentual sex between two adults violates these rights.

And, as a conservative, you know damn well that the constitution does not need to endorse a specific action to protect it. In fact, the Constitution endorces not one single action by an individual, only concepts. The Constitution only limits government, not the individual.

 

[yllus]

Isn't this sort of like the whole euthanasia escapades of Dr. Kevorkian over in the States? Legally he had no defense, but I suppose on a common sense level since his patients consented, it was acceptable. Translating over to this case, consent was present and this is a lot less of a deal than ending someone's life - so what's the deal? Although we're supposed to follow the letter of the law unequivocably and if not, challenge it only in court, that simply doesn't happen in reality anyways so why bother arguing the point?

Common sense seems to have hit an all-time low in this thread. I blame Tex-"LOL liberal elitism LOL LOL"-master.

 

[jjones]

lol, such an 80's discussion about aids and gay blame. those laws are antiquated such as other similar "blue laws" on the books throughout the south and conviction will be overturned on appeal.

 

[hungrypete]

haha this thread is funny

 

[Yeeny]

<<

<< Now lets turn the table. Have you ever had conservative who differed with your positions strongly as a friend? >>



Brilliant, Tex!

To stir up the storm a little, here's a page on what the Bible has to say about it all. Some people actually still try to follow it. >>



Wow, I was just looking over that site. I hope no one has ever masturbated, smoked a cigarette, or for the love of God, bought their child a Pokemon toy. Pokemon are evil Come on, if you are gonna talk about the Bible in relation to gays, then I think you need to remember the most important rule of all. Thou shalt not judge. It's a good one, think about it.

And that law will hopefully be struck down, because its a joke.

As for the AIDS being a homosexual disease? Read it and weep: Statistics

From that page: Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse Learn your facts before you spew them, and end up sounding like a moron.

 

[ToBeMe]

<<

<< Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact. >>



This is what is called discrimation, it would be the same as if banning blacks to have sex, does that make sense to you? >>


Hmmm, this isn't discrimination really, but, thought this was an interesting way for gays to deal with things they don't like............

• A shadowy group billing itself as gay activists and going under the name of "usQueers.com" features a wanted poster on its Web site urging a "horrible death" to heterosexual "detractors," citing by name former President Reagan, Sens. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, the Rev. Jerry Falwell as well as other prominent conservatives.
  
  Written in Old West-style lettering, the poster's message reads:
  
  "Wanted - To Experience a Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well Known Hetrosexuals Deserve it as Their Reward."
  
  "If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.)"
  
  What follows is a list of prominent conservative politicians, followed by cruel descriptions.
  
  "Jesse Helms can't walk anymore, so he qualifies as being a bit wounded, but unfortunately he is not suffering enough..."
  
  "Strom Thurmond, the oldest racist, sexist homosexual-hating jerk in the Senate, (is) ... rotting to death while the nation watches and laughs. ..."
  
  "Ronald Reagan, ex-President, deserves to experience a most horrible death soon, and is getting what he deserves. We're listing him as wounded because the way he is dying is Alzheimer's and it is irreversible, even if he isn't aware of it anymore, and not soon enough we will happily add him to our Good Riddance! section."
  
  Other conservatives singled out by usQueers.com include Christian Coalition chief Pat Robertson, American Family Association President Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, and Family Resarch Council officials Gary Bauer, Dr. James Dobson and recently added were several members of the Texas State Judicial System.
  
  Only one member of usQueers.com, Web host B. Allan Ross, is identified by name on the site. Ross describes other members as "journalists."
  
  "No other name will be associated with official output from usQueers.com," he explains in the site's "About Us" section. "Columnists, contributors or writers for usQueers.com who are identified by name have no other input to this website or to usQueers.com than that which is specifically credited to them on this website. ... We are journalists."
  

 

[Amused]

There are fanatics from every walk of life. Don't forget the wanted posters for abortion doctors, or the abortion doctor killers/clinic bombers.

Yep, hard core, fanatical right-wingers do the same damn thing.

That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents.

 

[potatosalad]

<< That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents. >>



The freedom to spread AIDS is not a freedom, it is (and should very well be) a crime.

 

[Czar]

<<

<< That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents. >>



The freedom to spread AIDS is not a freedom, it is (and should very well be) a crime. >>



From Girlfriday's post


<< From that page: Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse Learn your facts before you spew them, and end up sounding like a moron. >>


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Lets ban all sex then? sounds rational to your logic.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents. >>



The freedom to spread AIDS is not a freedom, it is (and should very well be) a crime. >>



Not all gays spread HIV, and you know this.

BTW, intentionally spreading HIV is already a crime in all fifty states.

 

[Haircut]

<< Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse >>


This just shows that you can prove anything with statistics.
It is the equivalent of comparing car breakdowns between Fords and Ferarris and concluding that because more Fords broke down in one year that Fords were less reliable.
You have to look at the numbers involved as well.

If there were equal numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals then this statistic would mean something.
We need to know the amount of heterosexual intercourse compared with homosexual intercourse before this statistic can have a valid meaning.

 

[ornjblud]

From: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/Opinions/031501/990109f.PDF



<< While investigating a reported ?weapons disturbance,? police entered a residence where they observed appellants engaged in deviate sexual intercourse. It is a Class C misdemeanor in the State of Texas for a person to engage ?in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.? TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 21.06 (Vernon 1994). However, because appellants subsequently entered pleas of nolo contendere, the facts and circumstances of the offense are not in the record. Accordingly, appellants did not challenge at trial, and do not contest on appeal, the propriety of the police conduct leading to their discovery and arrest. Thus, the narrow issue presented here is whether Section 21.06 is facially unconstitutional. >>



So, if the accused pled no contest and they didn't challenge they obviously weren't overly concerned with paying a $200 citation.

It's not like the cops go around kicking in doors looking for guys engaging in this activity. Through happenstance they got busted by an antiquated law. Big deal. They didn't make an issue of it, what makes you think you should?

 

[potatosalad]

<< If there were equal numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals then this statistic would mean something.
We need to know the amount of heterosexual intercourse compared with homosexual intercourse before this statistic can have a valid meaning. >>



Thank you.

If 5% of the world population is causing 20% of AIDS worldwide, then that 5% has a very troubling problem.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse >>


This just shows that you can prove anything with statistics.
It is the equivalent of comparing car breakdowns between Fords and Ferarris and concluding that because more Fords broke down in one year that Fords were less reliable.
You have to look at the numbers involved as well.

If there were equal numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals then this statistic would mean something.
We need to know the amount of heterosexual intercourse compared with homosexual intercourse before this statistic can have a valid meaning. >>



OK, lets use the most liberal estimate that homosexuals make up some 10% of the world's population. The 80% statistic means that, worldwide, gays and straights have a nearly equal occurrence of HIV.

Either way, it makes the point that HIV is an equal opportunity killer, especially in developing countries where condoms are frowned upon by heteros.

Let's face it folks, promiscuity causes the spread of HIV. It doesn't matter who you're sleeping with. Just how many.

 

[ShadowHunter]

I ain't crying