Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[Sava]

I would have told the student, they already have one, it's called America.

bawhawwww if u don't like it , go to cuba u comme1!

[Dis]

I'm so happy about this decision, I'm going to run out right now and have gay sex.

... On second thought, I think I'll just get a blowjob from a hooker

[Kramerman]

you're so candid... its great, it cracks me up everytime

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

Why do minorities need to be protected if the democratic majority see otherwise? If the minorities don't like it, they can always change the laws or go somewhere else?

The issue is that the "tyranny of the majority" should only come into being when there is a legitimate state interest being served.

Why should minorities be protected? The argument goes that there is no difference between a white man and a black man with regards to fundamental rights. Rather than creating new rights out of whole cloth, all they had to do was extend the existing rights to the disenfranchised.

That would be acceptable for sodomy, if it can be shown that there is an existing right to privacy that can be extended.

And that is a private matter for them to decide, not for the state to impose it's views. Or do you see communism and collective property ownership as legitimate, as long as an elective majority supports the notion?

No. Suppose a man has a vasectomy done without his wife's permission? I would consider that to be grounds for divorce. A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

And again, where is the state's interest in intruding in not only private, but privileged matters (doctor-patient privilege).

In order for birth control to be provided, requires the approval of the state, as the drugs have to be tested for medical approval. The state tries to protect people from harmful drugs and side-effects. Now, what medical condition does birth control cure? I see little therapeutic benefits from the drug, and potentially harmful side-effects from prolonged use.

Or should the state also prohibit smoking, not going to the church of your choice once a week, eating foods with saturated fat and drinking coffee?

Smoking: The state does not have to pay for the consequences of smoking, so they should allow cigarettes to be distributed.

Church: Freedom of religion.

Food and coffee: Same as above.

It seems you view is that the state has the power to impose it's will on the entire populace for any matter, regardless of state interest, as long as a majority of the current legislature decides to do so.

No, there are specific limits on both sides. Government should not disregard the constitution, and the Judiciary should respect the elected assembly.

The only reason to override the legislature is when the legislature exceeds it's authority explicitly, or by failing to demonstrate the required level of state interest in issues involving a balancing of rights of different parties.

These are old laws against sodomy, so why the delay? Why does the state have less compelling interest to uphold the laws now than before?

hours of work laws are based on imposition of Christian doctrine, and are not based on compelling state interests, then by all means invalidate them.

Why parry, and not thrust? Finish off my argument by showing that the law as written imposes Christian doctrine, and does not show any compelling interest.

There are a number of privacy laws on the books - for example, relating to disemination of personal data and financial information.

That's the best you can come up with for a privacy law?

[LoneWolf]

I'm sure Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams would be very proud, to the point of shock, to find that they created the rights to sodomy and racial discrimination.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Boris Gudonov
He should be thankful it erased the sour memories of the previous two years filled with his marital woes, police depatment excesses and racial antagonism filling the headlines.

Yeah, Giuliani should be thankful that the murder of 3,000 people took his marital troubles off the front page. I can't imagine the sense of relief he must've felt after the attacks.

[Ben Kenobi]

People are uninformed! Bigorty results from a lack of interaction or knowledge. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my friends that I've known who was once bigoted toward gays became tolerant upon hearing that I was gay. Education, discussion, and exposure to homosexuals in a casual way -- rather than as propagandized, hideous AIDS-infected sex freaks -- would gladly change "public opinion."

Agreed. Just make sure you show both sides to the story.

Of course, EDUCATION about real-life gay issues (as well as on one particular, recent war) is never the goal of any conservative. It is about playing on ignorance, fear, and alienation. Gays are an accecptable target when they are a distant enemy -- much like the Muslim "fanatical" Iraqis.

Target for what? Assault?

If conserrvatives educated the public about the poor, minorities, women's rights, and other liberal "agendas," public opinion would greatly change. It's in advocating ignorance, distance, and isolation that hatred toward any groups -- especially gays -- is allowed to continue.

So, everything improves when conservatives say the exact same things as the liberals?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Templar


Heh heh, I've started a new meme!

The mean white meme?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc


Oh, bull ****.

"The people decided..."

"Let the people decide..."

People are uninformed! Bigorty results from a lack of interaction or knowledge. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my friends that I've known who was once bigoted toward gays became tolerant upon hearing that I was gay. Education, discussion, and exposure to homosexuals in a casual way -- rather than as propagandized, hideous AIDS-infected sex freaks -- would gladly change "public opinion."

Of course, EDUCATION about real-life gay issues (as well as on one particular, recent war) is never the goal of any conservative. It is about playing on ignorance, fear, and alienation. Gays are an accecptable target when they are a distant enemy -- much like the Muslim "fanatical" Iraqis.

If conserrvatives educated the public about the poor, minorities, women's rights, and other liberal "agendas," public opinion would greatly change. It's in advocating ignorance, distance, and isolation that hatred toward any groups -- especially gays -- is allowed to continue.

Therefore, Scalia is a fork-tongued idiot.

-Ben

So are gay day parades secretly sponsored by social conservatives to purposefully mislead the public as to the nature of homosexuals?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
Fine, take my (fairly obvious) hyperbole out into literal context. Conservatives rally people into believing that their money is being used to support homosexual propaganda. It is about creating division and inciting fear.

You could be fairer and admit that only some conservatives do this, and that some liberals do it as well. Had you done so, I would have to agree. These people don't care nearly as much about the public good as they do about winning.

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
And yes, my high school did celebrate a latino history, and black history month. It also had a school GSA and a "Day of Silence" in observance of gay abuse.

But -- does that stop students from asking a woman perfoming a Harriet Tubman skit from asking "Why isn't there a Caucasian Awareness Club?"

That sounds like a very good question, very inappropriately timed.

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
There are months set aside for history or diversity, but nothing of importance was learned in them. True tolerance of minority groups -- including gays -- at my inner-city school was due to co-existing with them, or if not co-exisitng, simply by a force of association.

So you admit that your initial assertion that education is the salve for many our social ills is wrong or a good deal narrower a benefit than you originally suggested? Or are you one of those paranoid lefties who believe on any given issue that conservatives have some sort of magical prowess or unbelievable ineptitude? In this case you seem to believe that a conservative doing the same things that liberals have been doing for decades would be successful. I doubt that myself.

Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
Suburbia and conservatism work at keeping those boundaries, to play both sides against one another so that a 3rd party can achieve power.

That cannot be denied.

-Ben

You might want to snip this part off of your post, or rewrite it so that it doesn't seem completely insane / incoherent.

[Berzerker]

Lonewolf -

I'm sure Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams would be very proud, to the point of shock, to find that they created the rights to sodomy and racial discrimination.

Yup...oh wait... nah...I'm sure they never got a BJ.
But they did uphold a right to own other people now didn't they, so I'd have to compare the two acts - homosex and slavery - to decide if they got it right or wrong wrt what qualifies as a "right"... They got it wrong.

[uh Clem]

That would be acceptable for sodomy, if it can be shown that there is an existing right to privacy that can be extended.

Where is the government's right to outlaw it? I can't find it in the Constitution.

There is something there saying that the enumeration of some rights shouldn't imply the disparagement of other (unmentioned) rights. But that isn't talking about the government.

[Berzerker]

Where is the government's right to outlaw it? I can't find it in the Constitution.

Me neither, but I'm sure a liberal or conservative can twist "provide for the common welfare" into an excuse for anything they want to take from others.

There is something there saying that the enumeration of some rights shouldn't imply the disparagement of other (unmentioned) rights.

Oh, didn't you hear, the 9th Amendment is, to quote one SC justice, a "dead letter".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yeah, Giuliani should be thankful that the murder of 3,000 people took his marital troubles off the front page. I can't imagine the sense of relief he must've felt after the attacks.

If you had actually read carefully, you'd see I was referring to him being thankful for the new public perception of his leadership abilities, not the attacks themselves. Thank you, come again.

[Boris Godunov]

No. Suppose a man has a vasectomy done without his wife's permission? I would consider that to be grounds for divorce. A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

Irrelevant. Whether or not it is grounds for divorce, it is not illegal. A man can get a vasectomy whenever he sees fit. If his wife objects, she can leave him. But he won't be arrested. The state cannot tell the man he can't get the procedure if he wants, nor can it tell the doctor he can't perform the procedure if he wants.

Parties are protected from "exploitation" by divorce. Besides, it would be just as easy, if not moreso, to "exploit" a partner through having more children than not. Think of a woman whose husband doesn't want any or more children who purposefully allows herself to become pregnant. Isn't that exploitative?

I'm rather shocked you think the state has a right to prohibit birth control to women. Perfectly fascistic.