US. Supreme Court

  • News
  • Thread starter Turtle
  • Start date
  • #1
Turtle
52
0
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
FZ+
1,599
3
Most definitely.

Next, please.
 
  • #3
Mulder
54
1
Free country isn't it?

I'm ready to strike down anyone who thinks they have a reason why it shouldn't be :wink:.
 
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Though I don't know the specifics of the case, in general yes.
 
  • #5
if the supreme court ruled the other way, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

if we're going to punish people for being born a certain way, like making it illegal to be homosexual, then what's next, making it impossible for mentally disabled persons to have kids, or even killing them so society doesn't have to deal with them?

also makes me glad rick santorum became a senator instead of a supreme court justice.
 
  • #6
Of course they were right, and for more than just common sense reasons.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.

Absolutely correct!
 
  • #8
Sting
157
2
Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.

lol. Really, it's not an issue whether or not you agree with their lifestyle. It's whether or not you agree with their freedom to practice that lifestyle.

It reminds me of that famous quote made by Voltaire...

Free country isn't it?

Since when? :wink:
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Turtle
Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?

Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?

eNtRopY
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010


Originally posted by eNtRopY
Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?

eNtRopY

No. It was the US Supreme court. What they really said was that states can not make such private consensual activities illegal.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
kat
39
0
It will be interesting how long it takes for the don't ask/don't tell military policy in the U.S. to be challenged with this new ruling, also interesting to see the outcome and what Bush's public views are on it.
 
  • #12
kyle_soule
240
1
I think we all know Bush will take a religious standpoint and denounce the ruling on the basis of morality, whose morality one would ask though? Are gays IMMORAL because they LOVE another of the same SEX?

I think the ruling is fair, and their reasoning is certainly good: it is a definate breach of privacy. Having laws against what a person can do with another person they love is insanse.

::::(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.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
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?

Actually, in most states the law is regarding sodomy; man, woman, critter, don't matter.

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.

It is interesting how many modern standards can trace their roots to the Bible. I wonder what argument an athiest would make against sodomy or homosexuality.

In some cities, it is still illegal: to spit in the street, to leave your horse untied, for a school teacher to be out past dark or to have sex, or to walk your pigs or sheep through town. Some of these laws are not really that old either. Up until the 1960s, white only drinking fountains could still be found in Portland Oregon. Of course, since the Grand Wizard of the KKK was also the head of the physics department at Oregon State University, well... need I say more? Of course, Oregon is slowly changing. The cities are pretty normal.

I used to know a website with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.
 
  • #14
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I used to know a website with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.

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 [Broken]

If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
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 [Broken]

If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by kyle_soule
None of these are laws in Illinois.

Link: http://realpolice.net/dumb_laws.htm [Broken]

If there were laws against sodomy, don't you think a lot of porn stars would be put in prison?

Interesting. I know that some laws like this are true. Also, the state does not typically regulate spitting on the street and such. These are usually under municipal codes. So, perhaps the claim was in error, but not completely false. Also, the court ruled on sodomy. This is the law on most books. Another state recently on the books with this was either Vermont or Maine. No doubt, almost nobody enforces such laws except places like Bushland.

Note: I am aware of some so called "urban legends", that I know for a fact are not urban legends. One website dedicated to this subject makes at least several false claims. Interesting, how does one introduce such an example? It is an urban legend that the following story is an urban legend?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
kyle_soule
240
1
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.

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:wink: You give me the exact location these laws are recorded in and I will believe you.
 
  • #18
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
if we're going to punish people for being born a certain way

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.


Having laws against what a person can do with another person they love is insanse.

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.


Are gays IMMORAL because they LOVE another of the same SEX?

I love my dad. I don't have sex with him.
 
  • #19
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:wink: You give me the exact location these laws are recorded in and I will believe you.

You did NOT pay attention.

Those are laws in the State of illoines.

You need to understand that there is no ruling that states laws MUST be enforced. They are laws, but they are NOT enforced - however they could be.

Just because you have committed law-breaking activities and were not arrested doesn't mean they're not laws.

You sir need to go to your local government and look in the state law book and you will see these laws there.

Until then, don't claim you know what is and isn't a law when you have NOT even peaked once into the book containing laws.
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If we found out tomorrow that there was a "murderer gene", would you advocate the Supreme Court legalizing murder?

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.

What about homosexual acts committed by those who weren't born a homosexual?

It is still a personal choice.

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.

You are comparing consensual activities mostly with those which have a victim. 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.

I love my dad. I don't have sex with him.

That's a good thing. However, if you and your dad are both consenting adults...as disgusting as the thought is [nothing about you personally but you know what I mean], it is surely no business of mine.
 
  • #21
kyle_soule
240
1
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.

At first I agreed with Hurkyl but you are 100% correct, as long as there is no victim, and all parties involved are willing, and it is of your own personal business, what right does anybody (especially law makers) have impeding with these choices?

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?

Sound like tabloid laws, are you going to believe the claim of a personal website or ones own logic? I've never seen a giraffe in Illinois, except in the zoos, and it isn't legal to get in the display with the animals anyways, it's like saying it is illegal to kill a person and it is illegal to make a man's heart stop until death and it is illegal to make a mains brain stop until death and it is illegal to make a man stop breathing until death, these are overkill and need not be mentioned with the former.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
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.

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.

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?

I wasn't really in the middle of this, I don't think, but I can't help but comment. You may be 100% correct. But not for any of the reasons given. Laws can be complex, contradictory, insane, irreverent, illegal, and about everything else. They stand as written unless challenged. So a really stupid law can stand for decades; even though if challenged it could never stand.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
kyle_soule
240
1
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.

All but that last statement I agree with and it is very nice to meet a religious person that isn't oppressive:smile: In a way though, you are being oppressive (somewhat), "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.

Back to the topic:

It is somewhat required of religion to protect its dogmas and condemn blatant challanges of these sacred laws. In this case, homosexuality is the sin it must condemn, the only thing, as you understand and apply, is these dogmas apply to 'potential' converts or the religious family. They ( I almost said you ) cannot expect what they believe to affect everything, and they certainly cannot condemn giving freedom to other people while they enjoy freedoms that could be suppressed. But you realize this and aren't like this, I just see so many people that aren't like you. The pastor at the church I attend raised this issue, he said it is wrong that they legalized homosexuality, but he doesn't condemn those, he simply said it was a sin. I thought this was the best approach the church could take, once they step into the nonbelieving public they must ignore their personal beliefs and give everybody their rights to worship (or not) as they please, and with that right the right to do as they please.


PhysicsRocks88 - if you would like to continue this off-topic discussion, start a new post, I would be more than happy to participate. Turtle didn't intend this thread to be about what websites claim and if their claims are true...
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
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.

True, according to your beliefs. :wink: 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.

And, oh yes. We did hijack the thread a bit eh?
 
  • #25
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And, oh yes. We did hijack the thread a bit eh?

Turtle only has 38 posts, you, more than me, can do that. You are the mean, oppressive religious person that forces their opinions on others Hehe. Just joking.

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.

My beliefs are of course correct:wink:

Indeed in God's eyes your sins are no more disturbing than a homosexuals. It's a good thing that the Supreme Court doesn't make laws according to God's eyes...heheh. As long as the thread is ours I would like to know why so many religious people also think the answer to all the woahs of our country is to put religion back in schools? Prayer in schools won't stop school shootings, they think if they can just force religion on kids it will 'heal' them. Gr, religion urks me.
 
  • #26
Consentual crimes are only immoral if they offend ones personal preferences. The supreme court is taking the law a step forward here. The liberty of privacy is derived from the constitution.
 
  • #27
You would think 'conservatives' would support this action. After all, one less law means less government intrusion in our lives, slightly smaller government, ect...
 
  • #28
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
Also, this is not a fair comparison since there is a victim here.

There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.


It is still a personal choice.

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.


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.

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 they care if others sin?

Why do we have interventions for alcoholics or try to convince people not to commit suicide?
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are those that would argue there are two victims in a homosexual act.

Not in any legal sense. I meant legally. You are effectively suggesting that we use the Bible as the Constitution. If this is not what you mean, then what are we using as a basis?

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?


If it can be shown to be self destructive, which is obviously conjecture, thus making your position completely academic, then we should treat it like we do other self destructive activities - TAX IT! Let's victimize some more people to make more soft money for the system.

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)

No your logic here completely fails. This assumes your premise that homosexuality is self destructive, or as you put it, the same as murder; which is really just a personal opinion; and a real stretch at that...unless of course you can back up your assertion with evidence.

What is your evidence that homosexuality is the same as consensual
murder?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
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. Comparing homosexuality to murder, alcoholism, and suicide ruins any argument you might have...and you don't have much of an argument.

If we say that sex is legal between consenting heterosexuals, then we CANNOT say it is illegal between homosexuals, or groups, or whatever combination consenting adults can come up with. It is one step away from the government telling you who you are allowed to love.

And, why is the government getting involved? Why is one orifice legal, and another not legal? Why is one adult partner legal and another adult partner not? Isn't a sodomy law the most idiotic and useless law that can exist? Hell, even an anti-spitting law makes more sense!
 
  • #31
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
I generally avoid making assertions about what the right thing for a government to do because there are lots of complications at various levels that I simply don't want to bother figuring my way through. The reason I chime in is because I see people ignoring those complications!


One of the things that really bothers me is how self-evident people think their beliefs are. It certainly wasn't self-evident 50 years ago that homosexuality was ok, what makes it self-evident now?

One of the other things that bug me is that people use cliches that are red herrings. "Being born a certain way" is a prime example; I highly doubt anyone who supports homosexuality using that argument would argue against homosexuality from people who weren't born that way, so I call people on it (and I haven't been wrong yet).


Your entire reasoning presupposes that it is acceptable for you to force your personal views on others.

Arguments like this one are on my list too; it works against ANY law, so it is misleading to try to apply this argument to one law in particular, and I somehow think you don't believe there should be no laws what so ever, right?
 
  • #32
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 :wink:.


1. No, America is by no means a free country.

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.
 
  • #33
Let's take the anti-freedom argument to its illogical(and religious right-wing supported) conclusion. If the government has a right to legislate sexual behavior between gay people, then they have a right to do it for heterosexuals. You will only have sex with government sanctioned partners, in the approved positions. Next, they can ban masturbation, because only deviants masturbate. Then, I suppose, they will eliminate sex entirely, and all pregnancies will be by artificial insemination, right?
 
  • #34
FZ+
1,599
3
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.
Constitution, Bill of rights, internationally agreed human rights charters.
Scientific evidence on lack of harmfulness. General assumption of US as land of the free.
Axiom that all men are equal and free.
Occarum's razor against senseless laws.
 
  • #35
How is being gay and doing gay things moral or not moral? All morality is completely irrelevant. Only the result of a code of laws matters - an orderly society is more productive and will make more copies of itself. Gay men and women are statistically more affluent and productive than their straight bretheren, therefore gays are inherently MORE moral than straights. The supreme court decision reflects the new gay superiority.

We have laws because they make society better, not to satiate an archaic Bronze-age religion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: US. Supreme Court

Replies
7
Views
469
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
87
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
360
Replies
22
Views
481
Replies
3
Views
278
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
574
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
447
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
844
Top