Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US. Supreme Court

  1. Jun 26, 2003 #1
    Was the Us.supreme court right in making homosexual sex legal?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Most definitely.

    Next, please.
     
  4. Jun 26, 2003 #3
    Free country isn't it?

    I'm ready to strike down anyone who thinks they have a reason why it shouldn't be :wink:.
     
  5. Jun 27, 2003 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Though I don't know the specifics of the case, in general yes.
     
  6. Jun 27, 2003 #5

    jb

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  7. Jun 27, 2003 #6
    Of course they were right, and for more than just common sense reasons.
     
  8. Jun 27, 2003 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, to see this level of agreement is a little scary.

    Absolutely correct!
     
  9. Jun 27, 2003 #8
    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...

    Since when? :wink:
     
  10. Jun 27, 2003 #9
    Don't you mean State of Texas Supreme Court?

    eNtRopY
     
  11. Jun 28, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: US. Supreme Court

    No. It was the US Supreme court. What they really said was that states can not make such private consensual activities illegal.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2003
  12. Jun 28, 2003 #11

    kat

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  13. Jun 30, 2003 #12
    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.
     
  14. Jun 30, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    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 web site with a list of laws like this. I will try to find it.
     
  15. Jun 30, 2003 #14
    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: May 1, 2017
  16. Jun 30, 2003 #15
    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: May 1, 2017
  17. Jun 30, 2003 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 web site 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: May 1, 2017
  18. Jun 30, 2003 #17
    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.
     
  19. Jun 30, 2003 #18

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Jun 30, 2003 #19
    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.
     
  21. Jun 30, 2003 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    It is still a personal choice.

    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.

    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.
     
  22. Jun 30, 2003 #21
    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: Jun 30, 2003
  23. Jun 30, 2003 #22

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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, any one 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.

    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: Jun 30, 2003
  24. Jun 30, 2003 #23
    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: Jun 30, 2003
  25. Jun 30, 2003 #24

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  26. Jun 30, 2003 #25
    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.

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook