Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, all these OLD, over-used red herrings of bestiality, pedophilia, incest and other issues NOT related to homosexuality REALLY get tiresome everytime they're brought up when discussing -- or attempting to discuss -- issues involving homosexuality.

Can you please go back into your cave. We aren't even discussing homosexuality anymore, just the general ideas of the 9th Amendment.

But, since you bring it up. This decision actually does seem to open the door for beastiality and incest (but probably not pedophila).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You know, all these OLD, over-used red herrings of bestiality, pedophilia, incest and other issues NOT related to homosexuality REALLY get tiresome everytime they're brought up when discussing -- or attempting to discuss -- issues involving homosexuality.

Can you please go back into your cave. We aren't even discussing homosexuality anymore, just the general ideas of the 9th Amendment.

But, since you bring it up. This decision actually does seem to open the door for beastiality and incest (but probably not pedophila).

So in other words, another off-topic within a thread that was created in the Off-Topic forum.

[Boris Godunov]

Adult incest, perhaps, but I don't see how bestiality will now be affected, since the ruling applied to consenting adults.

Bestiality falls under animal abuse statutes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So in other words, another off-topic within a thread that was created in the Off-Topic forum.

Duh!

Adult incest, perhaps, but I don't see how bestiality will now be affected, since the ruling applied to consenting adults.

I wasn't being totally serious... but Mr. Fun was asking for it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But, since you bring it up. This decision actually does seem to open the door for beastiality and incest (but probably not pedophila).

Part of the decision seemed to say that the state had to have a rational reason for the law, not merely a compelling interest.

Scalia argues that this decision opens the door for gay marriage. I'm sure we're gonna see a case before the 9th that throws down the guantlet.

I'm curious as to how this will affect a case already in Federal court. A gay couple is suing Florida for the right to adopt a foster child they've been raising for years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Part of the decision seemed to say that the state had to have a rational reason for the law, not merely a compelling interest.

THIS is why people should stop going off on Scalia for no reason and actually read his dissent. He makes this point. A majority of his opinion actually says that the court really FUBARed the reasoning. It didn't say what standard it was using.. and while it seems it should be strict scrutiny, it was using rational basis later. It was highly convoluted and didn't set any standards in the reasoning. You can really take this in any way you want, because you can argue the court argued for rational basis in these cases instead of strict scrutiny. Some of you should read it.

I am pleased with the decision, but NOT the reasoning. It seems to be similar to Romers v. Evans when law proffs all around the country said 'Kennedy had our hearts, but Scalia had our minds'. Meaning, they wanted to Kennedy's point to win out, but agreed that Scalia made the more logical argument. The more and more I read I think that Kennedy is a horrible justice, but his heart is in the right place.

[Evil Knevil]

Just to voice my congrats.

It's about time. Hopefully this is another step in the rollback of prejudice in the USA. Fight the war!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's okay to kill and eat a sheep but not boink one?

That's a different argument. I'm saying the Constitution does not forbid states from making laws against sheep boinking... because someone thinking it is their right to boink sheep doesn't matter.

In the privacy of your own home, you should be able to boink sheep. Er, um...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mtg -

Actually, with the help of no fault divorce {snip}

I've dealt with family law issues in several states, both directly, and in connection with friends and family-members. Maybe Kansas is full of particularly anal and man-hating bureaucrats who've created an industry out of women getting divorced for the hell of it just to victimize men, but what you're describing would be rather hard to back up with actual sources for most states, unless you (maybe) took the once in a decade frootloop case and extended that as the example of the way the system works.

So if states suddenly got involved in divorce through no-fault laws, how the hell do you think divorce works in divorce for cause only states. You think those are private trials? Or the man just puts the ***** back in her place and the state doesn't get into it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the privacy of your own home, you should be able to boink sheep. Er, um...

[St Leo]

Sheep can't give consent. Don't abuse your fellow animals. End of story.

[Dis]

Originally posted by mindseye

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

They hardly represent the nature of most homosexuals, no more than the annual New Orleans Mardis Gras Parade represents the nature of heterosexuals.

Show us your tits!

speak for yourself

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by St Leo
Sheep can't give consent. Don't abuse your fellow animals. End of story.

Do sheep consent to be eaten?

What if a man consents to be murdered and eaten (as happened recently in Germany)?