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

[jthsmak]

It all comes down to politics. No one is going to jeopardize their position in a conservative-controlled state by repealing a gay sex ban. Gay Texans don't care because they normally never get caught.

You can't argue a prohibition of sex. Doing such is moronic. Inside, it may make you feel good that your disapproval of gays has been vented through meaningless, unenforceable legislation but in the end this causes more harm than good. AIDS is not the issue, stop pretending it is. It?s a shame that AIDS has become such a rampant killer. However, unless you plan on fvcking an HIV positive man this is a nonissue to you. You use this as another way to call homosexuality sick, dangerous and wrong. Those are your opinions, but they are not popular ones (well maybe in Texas).

This is about basic rights. You who so openly defend your rights to religious persecution and the unification of church and state want to remove our rights in the sack. Fvck you. No one is victimized by consensual gay sex; therefore it is not a crime. Hypocritical moralists tick me off.

Oh, and whoever suggested that homosexuality develops in the womb is wrong.

Homosexual reptiles do exist.

 

[Amused]

<< Oh, and whoever suggested that homosexuality develops in the womb is wrong.

Homosexual reptiles do exist. >>



That was me. And the existence of homosexual reptiles does not negate my theory. An egg is just an external, battery powered womb

 

[jthsmak]

heh, touch&eacute;.

 

[Michael]

Again, I disagree with the law. This statement, however, makes me smile:

"Hypocritical moralists tick me off."

since it is based on jthsmak's moral beliefs.

It would be interesting to know if sodomy laws are constitutional. they must have been argued before the Supreme Court already but I'm not sure where to look.

Michael

 

[jthsmak]

Morals and rights are two different things, my friend. You can believe whatever you want until it unfairly restricts us.

 

[reitz]

<< Kudos to you , I´v always thought you were a conservative but lately i´v been thinking that you are a liberal. It is best to be in the middle I think. >>

Conservative, liberal...it really doesn't matter. I've always pegged Amused as a realist.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Kudos to you , I´v always thought you were a conservative but lately i´v been thinking that you are a liberal. It is best to be in the middle I think. >>

Conservative, liberal...it really doesn't matter. I've always pegged Amused as a realist. >>



Damn, reitz, that's about the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here

I strive for objectivism, but my opinions keep getting in the way

 

[JasonG]

Some more statistics on AIDS:

AIDS Stats

This is a worldwide problem. It will never be solved by hatred.

One interesting fact: "In Latin America, heterosexual sex remains the main mode of HIV transmission, in contrast to industrialized nations where male homosexual contact remains the chief cause of infection."

I guess they should ban heterosexual sex in Latin America.

Jason

 

[Michael]

"unfairly".

<grin>

Opinions again. There are tons of laws that others find "unfairly" restrict them.

I have just as much trouble with the hypocritical "liberals" who think their way is right as I do with religious conservatives attempting to enforce their point of view. Again, we live in a democracy. If the law is constitutional (I'm guessing it is), then it has to be repealed. That's the work of the citizens of Texas to do. If they don't want to, then it is their business.

Of course, if you disagree, I fully support your right to protest, boycott, or do whatever other lawful actions you feel are needed. Just don't pretend that your opinion on something like this is any more valid than the people's opinion that passed the law in the first place. Just because you think it is right doesn't make it so. Since this is the same argument that you're using to say the law shouldn't have been passed, you should apply it to yourself.

Michael

ps - I've looked and haven't seen the area of the Constitution that says that sodomy is a right that can't be restricted by law. Again, I'm not against it and do think this is a matter between consenting adults, not the government. If it had been in a public place, maybe I would feel a little different, but not in a house. Of course, we don't know the whole back story and why the police would have wanted to use the old law.

 

[merlocka]

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.

Potatosalad, perhaps you've tossed to many... you're a freak.

The center for disease control's numbers for hetero vs homo in 1999 are like 30% vs 46% of all reported cases. What studies are you reading?

What statistics are you reading (which you honestly believe) which are classifying people as monogomous or promiscuous?

Show me a gay man and you can say he's promiscuous? What's your address? I'll fedex you a mirror.

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

And it's much worse than the FUD your spreading, eh?


p.s. i love the part about unwarranted leap of logic. Your making logical 540 McTwists in here.

 

[fragarific]

that is messed up! :disgust:

 

[Perknose]

I yearn for the days of the true Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln, peopled by principled and circumspect men like Dwight David Eisenhower, Robert Taft, and Thomas Dewey, none of whom ever thought it was the government's business where you put your weenie.

 

[Maleficus]

Shoulda thrown the queers in jail then they can get all the gay sex they want and be away from the public.

 

[Vadatajs]

<< Left to their own devices, gay men seek promiscuity.

This societywide trend has been confirmed by numerous studies.

When you talk about a monogamous gay couple, you are talking about a statistical anomaly. >>



LINK!!!!

 

[Vadatajs]

<<

<< It is clearly obvious that potatosalad is homophobic >>



How is it obvious?

How is it wrong to want to curb the incidence of AIDS?

We ban smoking in many areas to curb the incidence of secondhand smoke and therefore cancer.

Is that too a violation of the pursuit of happiness? >>



It's obvious because in the 2 pages I have read so far you have made blanket generalizations about the lives of gay people without ever once providing information to back yourself up. Saying "statistically speaking" is not good enough, provide a source of said statistics.

 

[Amused]

<< I yearn for the days of the true Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln, peopled by principled and circumspect men like Dwight David Eisenhower, Robert Taft, and Thomas Dewey, none of whom ever thought it was the government's business where you put your weenie. >>



The problem is, states had laws against sodomy directed at homosexuals then, too. Except they actually enforced them back then. There was no such thing as an above ground gay bar or club before the 1960s. Any gays who were caught were tried and convicted for public indecency laws. Bars and social clubs who tried to covertly host gays and lesbians were routinely raided, and everyone arrested on indecency charges.

Read up on an event called "Stonewall" (do a web search) that happened in the early seventies.

Back then, both the republicans and democrats were anti-gay. And the FBI (Ironically headed by a cross dressing queen for 50 years) was founded as the sex police and considered homosexuals as a national security risk. J Edgar Hoover (the cross dressing FBI queen) and Roy Cohn (Died of AIDS in 1985)(both gay) targeted gays intensly at the same time they helped McCarthey in his communist witch hunts.

They sure the hell DID care where you stuck your weenie. It just wasn't talked about in polite company back then.

 

[rahvin]

<<This societywide trend has been confirmed by numerous studies.

When you talk about a monogamous gay couple, you are talking about a statistical anomaly. >>

Please point me to this EXACT statistic, please use a reliable source.

<<It would be interesting to know if sodomy laws are constitutional. they must have been argued before the Supreme Court already but I'm not sure where to look.>>

Micheal, unless I'm mistaken sodomy laws have never been argued before the supreme court of the US.

 

[VisionsUCI]

OMG.. the implementation of the laws are confusing enough, not to mention that each state handles things differently...

 

[Lucky]

ps - I've looked and haven't seen the area of the Constitution that says that sodomy is a right that can't be restricted by law.


lalalalalalala.....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...lalalalalalala



BTW, and I'll go looking, but if im not mistaken, it has been argued before the SC before, and they declared the laws constitutional. But I'll go looking.

 

[Lucky]

I was correct.

In 1986, in Bowers vs. Hardwick, the US supreme court upheld a georgia sodomy law.

They held that:

The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194.

(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196.




I believe history will show this was a flawed decision, just as historians have harshly criticized KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES (1944), in which the USSC ruled that japanese relocation and internment camps during WWII was constitutional. The fact that Georgia's own supreme court ruled 4 years ago that their own law was unconstutional perhaps reflects the more conservative attitude in the country 12 years earlier. See here for an excellent site listing:

-what states still have sodomy laws on the books, who the law applies to (gays or straights), and what the punishment is
-what states have overturned them since their passage, with excerpts from state SC rulings
-other state supreme court rulings regarding the constitionality of sodomy law

 

[GasX]

I just read the first page of this thread and skipped ahead to post here on the last page. I have a question. Has potatosalad been banned yet for making absurdly and outrageous false statements backed only by the lie "statistically speaking" in order to provide the thread with flame bait?

And if not, potatosalad, please provide us with a reference to ANY one of the studies you refer too.

 

[flavio]

potatosalad is a pretty whacked out offensive person isn't he? But then again so is Maleficus.

 

[tcsenter]

<< And after doing volunteer work with HIV positive people for over ten years, and can verify that HIV is not restricted to homosexuals, nor is it a gay disease. >>

Absolutely correct, its a homosexual and IV drug user disease, now that all the hemophiliacs are dead.

I was working in surgery once and the discussion of AIDS popped-up, and the nurse mentioned her brother had died of AIDS. The surgeon said, "I'm sorry to hear that. Was he gay or a drug user?

I about fell-out! I looked at him and said "DR!" as if to scold him. He said "What?" Turned to the nurse and asked, "Well?"

She confirmed he was gay AND he used IV drugs. One-two punch. He thought her answer was vindicating, but I still told him he was still rude.

He said "Why? Now that all the hemophiliacs are dead, show me an AIDS patient and I'll show you either a homosexual or an IV drug user. Its one of the two, or both, something in the neighborhood of 90%. And if the patient isn't a homosexual or IV drug user, they got it from someone who was, so that makes it pretty much 100%."

I looked at the nurse, because I thought his comments would make her uncomfortable, but she was fine with it. She even agreed with him.

Since then, I did a little checking with public health physicians and nurses, and he was RIGHT!

AIDS is pretty much a disease of homosexual sex and IV drug using as a life-style behavior. If you're not a homosexual or IV drug user, than don't have sex with someone who is. If you've got those bases covered, your risk of contracting HIV is infinitesimally small. Worry more about condyloma, cholesterol, or something.

 

[tcsenter]

<< The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191. >>

Yep, homos have no constitutional or fundamental right to put their penises where they please. This is a LONG-STANDING principle of law, its been challenged numerous times, never successfully, and its considered "settled law".

 

[GasX]

<< Since then, I did a little checking with public health physicians and nurses, and he was RIGHT!

AIDS is pretty much a disease of homosexual sex and IV drug using as a life-style behavior. If you're not a homosexual or IV drug user, than don't have sex with someone who is. If you've got those bases covered, your risk of contracting HIV is infinitesimally small. Worry more about condyloma, cholesterol, or something. >>

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 800,000 to 900,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-third of whom are unaware of their infection.(3)

Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(4)

Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

To extrapolate from those numbers:

~300,000 people are HIV+ and unaware of their infection
~90,000 of these people are women
~67,500 of these women are heterosexual and not IV drug users

That's still a lot of potential partners for you.