- #1
Turtle
- 52
- 0
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.
Free country isn't it?
Originally posted by Turtle
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?
eNtRopY
Originally posted by kyle_soule
::::(Explicit Content Warning)::::
Is anal sex against the law with a man and a woman? Then why should it be against the law for a man and a man?
I would like to know how many laws like this are being enforced, I'm sure there are many more that need removed.
You must ask yourself, why are people making such a big deal about this, though? Do you think even one 'couple' did not engage in homosexual activity because of the current law? Foolish to even have a law that is impossible to enforce.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I used to know a website with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I would question the validity of these sites for this reason, on many of them there is this:
under Illinois:
"The English language is not to be spoken."
"You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile"
"Spitting is forbidden"
"It is forbidden to fish while sitting on a giraffe's neck."
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
None of these are laws in Illinois.
Link: http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm
If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
Originally posted by kyle_soule
None of these are laws in Illinois.
Link: http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm
If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
First off - yes those are all laws in the state of Illinois.
Secondly - on your porn star comment - laws are selectively enforced. There is no law that states law-breakers must be saught out.
if we're going to punish people for being born a certain way
Having laws against what a person can do with another person they love is insanse.
Are gays IMMORAL because they LOVE another of the same SEX?
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I've never met an officer that didn't speak english...
Born and raised in Illinois, these aren't laws. I work for IDOT and we always have a state cop out there on the interstate to enforce the speed limit, we are spitting all over the place, the cop has never stopped us or said hey, that's against the law.
But hey, you said they are laws so they must be You give me the exact location these laws are recorded in and I will believe you.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If we found out tomorrow that there was a "murderer gene", would you advocate the Supreme Court legalizing murder?
What about homosexual acts committed by those who weren't born a homosexual?
Being born a certain way, by itself, should not be grounds for legalization.
So there shouldn't be laws against stalking?
Or what about a man killing his wife if it was consensual?
I'm not buying this rationale.
I love my dad. I don't have sex with him.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. It would force a change in the penal system for sure. Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I think the religious stance bears mentioning. They will claim it is immoral and a terrible act and a sin, but you must ask yourself this, why do they care if others sin? Why must they always force their own beliefs onto others and our laws, as was mentioned. I cannot think of any other reason for having the law against homosexuals other than religion.
This is the last time I will address the question of the laws in ILLINOIS (not the "the State of illoines", this in itself makes me wonder what knowledge you have of my state). I know these aren't laws because firstly, they are absurd, secondly, the ones that enforce the laws are breaking many of them, thirdly, these
"It is legal to protect naked in front of city hall as long as you are under seventeen years of age and have legal permits."
"Bees are not allowed to fly over the village or through any of Kriland's streets."
cannot possibly be correct because public nudity isn't legal, are you saying there are two contradicting laws, one insanely absurd and the other a reasonable law? As for bees, they are free spirits, you cannot make laws against animals, do you fine them and put them in jail with 10 months of community service for breaking the law?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I will take a stab at this since I am one of the religious. Even though my religious beliefs require that homosexuality is a sin, and the Bible is very clear on this point, I choose these beliefs and I feel that they have no place in politics. The US is supposed to be all about freedom of choice - to the greatest extent possible in my opinion. So, even though I draw the line between religion and the state, I still could not condone such activities in a personal way. However, it is not my place to judge others. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that sort of stuff you know. This is also made very clear in the Bible. At the same time, I am required by the teachings of Christ to spread the word of God. This is why so many christians will try to convert you. I know all about the "they just want more donations" point of view, but, if you believe in the teachings of the Christian Bible, anyone of them, the basic points are pretty much the same. So in my own way I try to spread the word AS I READ IT. But in no way does this mean that I should spend time condemning others. I have enough to worry about in my own life. I would think that any other good christian would also. The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
"The thing about sin is: We all do it. Sin is sin." is kind of forcing your opinions on others, saying I sin isn't true, because I am not religious, outside of religion sin has no relevance, so if religion isn't "real" to me, how can I believe what you claim of me? What you want me to believe is that I sin...I think you get the idea.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And, oh yes. We did hijack the thread a bit eh?
True, according to your beliefs. But what I really meant was that even if tend to find a particular form of sin more or less disturbing [no I'm really not homophobic either], in Gods eyes, other people's lifestyle choices may no worse than my own...even according to my beliefs. Again, it is the issue of "I am not the judge". That is never my job.
Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.
It is still a personal choice.
Also, come on, consensual murder? There is still a victim. The question is not whether we view the activity as morally correct. The question is a right of privacy.
why do they care if others sin?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.
I'm looking to point out the flaw in the "It's okay because they're born that way" argument.
The "personal choice" argument has the same major flaw as the "born that way" argument; you presume that homosexuality is not a self-destructive (or mutually destructive) act. There are those who would disagree...Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
Again, same point. Unless you are able to use the "right of privacy" to defend consensual murder, it does not apply to the arguments against homosexuality. (at least type of argument I'm considering)
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.
I'm looking to point out the flaw in the "It's okay because they're born that way" argument.
The "personal choice" argument has the same major flaw as the "born that way" argument; you presume that homosexuality is not a self-destructive (or mutually destructive) act. There are those who would disagree.
Again, same point. Unless you are able to use the "right of privacy" to defend consensual murder, it does not apply to the arguments against homosexuality. (at least type of argument I'm considering)
Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
Your entire reasoning presupposes that it is acceptable for you to force your personal views on others.
Originally posted by Mulder
Free country isn't it?
I'm ready to strike down anyone who thinks they have a reason why it shouldn't be .
Constitution, Bill of rights, internationally agreed human rights charters.Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
2. Strike as you like - you can produce no more reasons why it should be allowed than can someone produce reasons why it should NOT be allowed.